Oral Answers to Questions

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Underwater Diving

Hywel Williams: What public funding has been given to the sport of underwater diving in the past five years; and if she will make a statement.

Richard Caborn: Before I answer, I am sure that hon. Members will join the world of football in passing their condolences to the family of George Hardwick, who captained Middlesbrough and England and who died this morning at the age of 84. He was, I believe, unique in that he captained the Great Britain side that played Europe in 1947, and that should be recorded.
	Between 1999 and 2004, sub-aqua diving in England   received lottery funding totalling more than £1.1 million. Sport is a devolved matter, as the hon. Gentleman will know because I wrote to him about this issue on 25 February 2002. Funding for sport in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is devolved to their respective sports councils. Responsibility for sport therefore lies with the devolved Administrations.

Hywel Williams: My concern is that there was yet another death about three weeks ago at the Dorothea quarry pool—the 21st in 10 years. I am afraid that the vast majority of those deaths involved visitors from England and beyond. Will the Minister tell us how much of the money spent on sub-aqua diving in England is devoted to safety, which is clearly paramount in these circumstances?

Richard Caborn: I join the hon. Gentleman in passing our condolences to the family of the young person who died in March. A record of 21 deaths in 10 years in that location ought to be the subject of further discussion. The hon. Gentleman knows that the owner of the site has now put it up for sale, and it is to be hoped that safety regulations can now be brought in there. The British Sub-Aqua Club is the governing body responsible for safety in this sport, and it takes that responsibility very seriously. I hope that a solution can be found for this site, but I reiterate that this is the responsibility of the Welsh Assembly, because sport is now a matter for the devolved Administrations.

Nigel Evans: Will the Minister ensure that youngsters who want training in sub-aqua diving can get it? Their schools may not be able to afford the necessary equipment or specialist training for smaller numbers of youngsters, but there might be one school that specialises in the sport. If the schools could talk to one another and encourage the grant-giving bodies to provide the necessary funding, those youngsters could get the training that would enable them to do sub-aqua diving in safety.

Richard Caborn: I take note of what the hon. Gentleman said and I shall raise the matter with the governing body. Anything that either the Government or the governing body can do to promote safety will be done. There is an element of danger involved in these sports, and it is important to manage the risk. The governing body for this sport is very responsible and takes its duties very seriously. The issue could also be linked to the sports colleges that we are now developing, to the school sports co-ordinators and to the new coaching structure that we are putting into place. I hope that, in that way, we can avoid any more deaths similar to the 21 that have occurred on the site in question over the last 10 years.

National Lottery Grants

Andrew Love: If she will make a statement on progress on the merger of the Community Fund and the New Opportunities Fund.

Estelle Morris: The New Opportunities Fund and the Community Fund are now working more closely together. We have recently announced that Sir Clive Booth will be interim chair of both boards, and that the new distributor will be called the Big Lottery Fund.

Andrew Love: I agree with what my right hon. Friend has said, but she will be aware that there are continuing concerns about the merger. I therefore ask her to reassure the House on two points. First, will the new organisation maintain its independence; and secondly, will its focus be on local priority setting, rather than being driven by national considerations?

Estelle Morris: I am happy to give my hon. Friend assurances on both those points. I remind the House that the new, larger distributor will make it much easier for members of the public to access funds. He knows that many organisations and individuals try to access more than one lottery distributor at the same time, and the new arrangement will make things much easier for them. Also—this is a major point—we hope that it will save 10 to 20 per cent. of the operating costs, which will mean that more money will be available for good causes. I am happy to give my hon. Friend the assurances that he seeks on both the important points that he raised and I shall keep my eye on them.

Patrick McLoughlin: A few weeks ago, the Countryside Agency announced that it was to end its funding for village halls, although they play a very important part in rural communities. Will the new lottery fund be able to provide a greater assurance that, when the volunteers—it is usually volunteers who run village halls—have gone through all the form-filling and been told that they qualify for lottery funding, they will not then receive letters telling them that the money has run out?

Estelle Morris: I acknowledge the importance of community and village halls, particularly in rural areas, and I know that most of the hon. Gentleman's constituency is rural. However, I cannot give an assurance that every bid for a community or village hall grant will be acceded to, because when the money runs out, the money runs out: it is as simple as that. I am happy to encourage Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love), to buy more tickets to put more money into the kitty.
	I believe that, from the two lottery funds, more than £200 million has been given to community and village halls since the lottery began. That is a sizeable amount. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the new distributor will continue to fund them, but I can give no guarantee that every application that meets the criteria will be accepted.

Diane Abbott: The old Community Fund gave money to many unfashionable but genuinely needy causes. May we have an assurance that the new distributor will also give money according to objective criteria, without constantly looking over its shoulder for the tabloid press?

Estelle Morris: I am happy to give that assurance. I am sure that my hon. Friend will join me in congratulating the Community Fund, which has not run scared when certain newspapers have featured articles that, in some respects, have been dishonourable. I know that the new board members and the new chair will want to retain the independence, impartiality and courage shown by the Community Fund, and I sincerely hope that my hon. Friend will never have reason to doubt the independence of the distribution body.

James Gray: If I may say so, the Minister's response to my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) was a little glib. Of course it is great that the Community Fund has spent £200 million on village halls over the years, but we fear that, following the merger with the New Opportunities Fund, no matter how many tickets we buy, the money will be diverted to equally worthwhile organisations such as the national health service. Will the Minister guarantee that the funding stream for village halls will remain as strong as it has been in the past?

Estelle Morris: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman thought my response glib. I was trying to be honest in stating the obvious—that when the money runs out, the money runs out.
	I remind the hon. Gentleman of the commitment to ensure that the proportion of funds that currently goes through the Community Fund will be the same under the new distribution body. I also remind him that the saving in administration costs that used to cover two distributors will mean more money for good causes. I see no reason why community and village halls should receive a lower percentage than they do now. I say that guardedly because it is not for Ministers to commit funds from the lottery body, but village and community halls are important, and fulfil all the existing criteria. I should be dreadfully disappointed if they fared worse under a merged distributor.

Ofcom

John Robertson: What recent discussions she has had with the chairman of Ofcom to discuss its work.

Tessa Jowell: There have been a number of contacts, both formal and informal, between the Ofcom chairman, board members and Ministers since Ofcom was established at the end of last year. I am now establishing a pattern of bi-monthly meetings with the chairman and members of the board.

John Robertson: My right hon. Friend will know of the excellent work being done in Glasgow by VIP On Air, the only internet and radio service for the visually impaired in Britain. Will she join me in congratulating Glasgow city council and the BBC on their support for the station? Is she aware that the visually impaired need an AM radio service so that their messages can be spread to visually impaired people throughout the country? Will she visit Glasgow, have a look at the radio station and see the excellent work that it is doing; and will she help me to secure the radio bandwidth that those people need from Ofcom?

Tessa Jowell: When I have the pleasure of visiting Glasgow, I will certainly accept my hon. Friend's invitation. I know that he has pursued this issue vigorously. A meeting will take place in two days' time, at which I hope outstanding matters will be resolved. My hon. Friend is right to stress the value of radio stations such as VIP On Air that develop the community radio network throughout the country.

Julie Kirkbride: Has the Secretary of State had the chance during the parliamentary recess to read Ofcom's report, "Driving Digital Switchover" and consider the embarrassing flaw in the Government's arguments on switchover? She will be aware that the Government say that 95 per cent. of households must be able to receive digital signals before they will consider turning off the analogue signal. However, Ofcom points out that only three quarters of households will be able to receive a terrestrial digital signal, and not all the extra households needed to take that figure up to 95 per cent. will wish to buy a satellite dish. How will the Government meet their own targets?

Tessa Jowell: Yes, I have read the report, which I commissioned, and I recently received the parallel report from the BBC. Both reports are important in helping to determine the announcement of the date on which the analogue signal will be switched off. The hon. Lady's point is important, and it is a technical one. Essentially, Ofcom has made it clear during the past two or three years that it will not be possible to increase the reach of DTT—digital terrestrial television—which is one of our three digital platforms, until the analogue signal is switched off, allowing the release of the spectrum currently occupied by both the digital and analogue signals. She need fear no sinister effects at all. The matter is purely technical, and is now being taken into account in planning properly for upgrading the transmitters and making the announcement on the date of switchover in due course.

Julie Kirkbride: I have to say to the Secretary of State that that is more of a technical matter, and that the Government's plans for switchover seem to be in disarray as a result of the report. She will further notice from the report that the American Government have gone forward with the requirement for all new television sets to have a digital decoder installed by 2007. By contrast, here in the UK, 19 million analogue sets have been sold in the past five years, and just 400,000 with digital decoder. Given what Ofcom has said about the time scale for meeting the Government's own commitment to turn off the analogue signal by 2010, can the Secretary of State confirm today that she will come forward by early 2005 with a detailed plan for how digital switchover will be achieved?

Tessa Jowell: The hon. Lady really should be more familiar with this policy than she is. On DTT coverage, as I have explained, the specific issue is the sharing of spectrum by the analogue and digital signals, with analogue interleaving. That is not something into which she probably wants to go more deeply, but it is a technical issue and—

Julie Kirkbride: Does the Secretary of State understand it?

Tessa Jowell: Do not worry, I am far too deeply into it. I do not think that the hon. Lady need worry about that. We will certainly meet the target, and the work for that is in hand. We will make an announcement on the date of switchover, and ensure—

Julie Kirkbride: When?

Tessa Jowell: We will make that announcement when the necessary work with the industry and broadcasters has been concluded. That is not a decision for Government alone but must involve the views of the British people, who have strong feelings, as expressed by the report. I hope that the complexity of the matter is not lost on the hon. Lady; the policy remains as stated and we will go ahead and achieve our plans for digital switchover with the full support of Ofcom, as set out in its report.

Derek Wyatt: My constituency largely missed out on cable television, and our radio frequencies do not allow us to have AM or FM radio. Ofcom has announced a 5k range for community radio stations, but a poorer community such as mine on the isle of Sheppey does not have the necessary funding for community radio. Is there any chance of funding, either from top-slicing the licence fee or from Ofcom itself, so that community radio stations can be set up across the whole United Kingdom?

Tessa Jowell: That is a big ambition and my hon. Friend will realise that it is a potentially expensive one. However, the case for community radio has been well made through the pilots that have been running for some time and the benefits that have been extended to communities in the pilot areas. I hope that it will be possible to extend the range and network of community radio. The pace at which that happens will depend on the availability of resources, but my hon. Friend rightly points out that we have a spending round coming up, and the review of the BBC's charter is also to come.

Olympic Games

Simon Hughes: What the expected spending of her Department on sport in Greater London in 2004-05 is, excluding spending connected with the UK's 2012 Olympic bid.

Tessa Jowell: The expected lottery and Exchequer spending on sport by my Department and its sponsored non-departmental public bodies in Greater London in 2004-05 is £81 million. In addition, grants will continue to be committed from London's £81 million share of the New Opportunities Fund in physical education and sport.

Simon Hughes: Greater London, like all other parts of the United Kingdom, will want to be sure that its sport funding continues until 2012 and that Olympic funding is seen as a top-up rather than a substitute. Why has the funding through the sports lottery fund in London gone down from £30 million two years ago to only £6 million last year—nearly £1 million less for every London borough? I accept that she is committed to making sure that we do as much as possible for sport, but something has clearly gone badly wrong somewhere.

Tessa Jowell: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, nothing has gone badly wrong. Instead, Sport England did the right thing. When its incoming chairman found that the sports lottery fund was over-committed, Sport England introduced a moratorium on the allocation of any new grants. The result was a reassessment of all outstanding grants against value-for-money criteria, linked to the efforts of Sport England to rationalise its organisation and bureaucracy. The result is that £8 million a year is now going back into sport from organisational costs. We can now have confidence that, throughout the country—not just in Greater London—the sports lottery projects that go ahead represent good value for money.

Phil Sawford: On sport in London, will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Mr. Christopher Stanley and the thousands of others who took part in the London marathon yesterday? Will she congratulate the organisers and supporters who made it such a successful event, despite the inclement weather?

Tessa Jowell: I certainly join my hon. Friend in his congratulations. I am sure that the House would want to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate), who achieved an extremely respectable time of under four hours and, in the process, inspired many of us to wear pedometers. That was as far as we got. The London marathon was a great inspiration to those who wanted to be there and to do it, but also to new and emerging champions who will in time do our country proud.

Jacqui Lait: The Minister will know how important her Department's spending is to Crystal Palace and how important Crystal Palace is to London. Has she given any indication to the Department for Transport of the effect that any delay to the east London line extension might have on the regeneration of Crystal Palace?

Tessa Jowell: The hon. Lady will be aware of the robust plan that has now been agreed for the regeneration of Crystal Palace, and I hope that she will join her hon. Friends in welcoming that plan and the secure future that there is now for Crystal Palace. On her second question, I have not had any specific discussion with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport about that matter. However, in the context of the Olympic bid, we are keeping under review the capacity of London's transport infrastructure to meet the requirements of the Olympics. We are confident that the infrastructure will be capable of meeting the demands of the Olympics that we hope to host in London in 2012.

Nick Hawkins: I join the Secretary of State in congratulating everyone involved in yesterday's marathon, but I return to the original question on the drop in funding available for sport in Greater London. Will she recognise that there is great concern among sports administrators that the Government are, once again, using the existence of the lottery as a substitute for Exchequer funding for sport?
	We join in the Secretary of State's tribute to Sport England for ensuring that less money is wasted in administration, but we remain concerned that the Government have not stuck to the original ambitions of John Major's national lottery and that, by taking away money that sport had a legitimate right to expect from the lottery, and by introducing the New Opportunities Fund and reducing Exchequer funding, they are causing Londoners to lose out.

Tessa Jowell: The hon. Gentleman should look rather more widely. Money for sport comes not only from the sports lottery fund but in substantial amounts from the New Opportunities Fund. There is a programme of close on £1 billion of investing in schools throughout the country, including in my constituency and throughout Greater London, that will, in some cases for the first time ever, give children proper facilities in which to enjoy and play sport—something that children who grew up under the 18 years of his party's Government never had.

Gambling

Gregory Barker: What plans she has to present a Bill to Parliament in this Session to reform gambling legislation.

Richard Caborn: We plan to introduce such a Bill as soon as parliamentary time allows. The Bill will modernise the law and provide stronger safeguards. We are considering the report of the Joint Committee that considered our draft Bill. It made 139 recommendations and we will consider each carefully.

Gregory Barker: The Joint Committee's report called for the Government to act quickly. The industry expects a Bill to be introduced this summer. Will the Minister grip this legislation and introduce it before we rise for the summer recess? Given the jobs and investment at stake, will he consider in particular the Committee's recommendations on family-friendly seaside amusement arcades?

Richard Caborn: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have been gripping the Bill for a considerable time. I agree wholeheartedly that it is very important, but the Department cannot determine what the procedure will be in the House. I acknowledge that this legislation, alongside the reform of licensing, is very important to industries such as tourism, in which I know that he has an interest. Tourism is a £76 billion industry, representing just under 5 per cent. of gross domestic product, so it is important to modernise the legislation so that the industry can respond to the calls on its competitiveness and productivity, which are low by international standards. I acknowledge the urgency and give an assurance that we will do our best to fit this in the parliamentary timetable.

Joan Humble: My right hon. Friend will be aware that Blackpool eagerly awaits his answer on this issue. In moving as quickly as possible to introduce the Bill, will he liaise with colleagues in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to consider planning powers at both regional and local level, so that the opportunities for economic regeneration can be taken in the most effective and efficient manner?

Richard Caborn: We have had an excellent dialogue with the ODPM, and have moved on from the Budd recommendations, which were the foundation of the Bill. We have consulted on planning powers at regional level and special category status to achieve the objective to which my hon. Friend refers, to use gambling as a major regeneration tool. I know that this is being considered carefully in Blackpool. We will work with the ODPM to enact the Bill as quickly as possible.

Adrian Sanders: Will the Minister ensure that full consideration is given to the concern of the British Amusement Catering Trades Association and other organisations representing seaside and other amusement organisers and businesses—often family owned—that the Bill moves too quickly and will place them at a competitive disadvantage?

Richard Caborn: If any section of the gambling industry has had the greatest access to Ministers, it is the family and amusement arcade sector. The recommendations of the Budd report, which provided the foundations of the Bill, and progress made on the Bill to date, show that the greatest concessions have been made to that sector of the industry. I hope that what we have done, particularly on category D machines, will reassure that sector of the industry and ensure that it has a long-term future. Rather than having further consultations, the quicker the Bill becomes an Act, the better for the sector.

David Drew: Does my right hon. Friend accept that not all Labour Members support the drive towards the liberalisation of gambling, and that it is vital for him to talk to those who do not want that advance, particularly those who are aware of the serious addiction problems caused by gambling? When the Bill is introduced, will the House have a proper opportunity for a full debate on how best to prevent others from becoming addicted to gambling?

Richard Caborn: Question 8 specifically deals with social responsibilities, so that will be answered in greater detail later. We have undertaken wide consultation on that matter, and I believe that the concerns of the broader society are reflected in the Bill, whose safeguards will be adequate to deal with the problem.

Licensing Guidelines

Chris Bryant: What representations she has received on her draft guidelines to licensing authorities; and if she will make a statement.

Richard Caborn: On 23 March, we publicised and laid before the House the guidance for consideration and approval. Since then, we have received two representations from local authorities about the content of the draft, seeking clarification about the relationship of the public safety licensing objectives to passive smoking and criminal record checks for applicants for personal licences. The draft guidance has been prepared in consultation with other Government Departments, Executive agencies, the police, local authorities, performers' representatives and trade associations, among others.

Chris Bryant: The Minister will know that many people are troubled by the irresponsible marketing practices of some pubs and clubs, which offer as much as people can drink for a fixed amount of money, although that is not available in the bars of the House. Does he believe that the licensing authorities and the police will use their powers robustly enough to deal with such irresponsible landlords?

Richard Caborn: I hope so. Besides the provisions on the statute book, the guidance before Parliament and new regulations, the matter also dovetails with the Government's alcohol harm reduction strategy. I make it absolutely clear that the irresponsible licensee to whom my hon. Friend refers should be hounded out by the authorities that I mentioned and, indeed, by the industry itself. I commend the British Beer and Pub Association for its code of practice on irresponsible drinks promotions, to which it is attempting to commit all its members. What we are placing on the statute book will be proportionate to deal with the small minority of licensees who use such promotions to create irresponsible drinking. The police and other authorities now have the powers to move in and deal with the problem. It is furthermore illegal to serve drink to anyone who is intoxicated. I am sure that the action of the police and other authorities will help us to root out the small group of irresponsible licensees.

Don Foster: In January, I accused the Minister of complacency over the timetable for the introduction of the Licensing Act 2003 and he told me that I was wrong, that the timetable was clear and that the first appointed day would be in July this year. Will not the delay in the publication of the guidance—we have still not seen the draft forms for operational plans or the agreement on the fee structure for licence applications—lead to considerable further delay in respect of the first appointed day, now likely to be in December? Indeed, is it not likely that the Act will not be fully implemented until after the next general election? Does not that delay give a whole new meaning to the text that the Labour party sent to thousands of young people before the last election—"Vote Labour on Thursday for extra time"?

Richard Caborn: Not at all. [Hon. Members: "You can do better than that, Don."] I shall not repeat that. Let me give the timetable, for the benefit of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) and the rest of the House. Yes, there has been slippage, but if Parliament approves the guidance, which I hope it will by the end of April or the beginning of May—that is possible—the first appointed day will be towards the end of October or the beginning of November. [Interruption.] The timetable is laid out in the Act, so as soon as Parliament says that it agrees with the guidance, we can move towards the first appointed day. As I said, if that happens at the end of April or the beginning of May, six months later it will be the end of October or the beginning of November, and the second appointed day—the end of the total transition—will be in July 2005. The general election could take place in 2006, because we have five years, so we could still be on course for getting there before the next general election.

Bob Blizzard: My right hon. Friend will remember that when the Licensing Bill was passing through Parliament, there was concern about the impact that it might have on live music in small venues that had been operating under the so-called two-in-a-bar rule. Is he now satisfied that the guidance makes it absolutely clear to local authorities that they should not impose unreasonable red tape burdens on such premises—and, indeed, that many small musical events are exempt from the legislation altogether, so long as they behave themselves?

Richard Caborn: Yes. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made that perfectly clear, and so does the guidance. The Government are trying to liberalise gambling and licensing, and to ensure that industries, especially tourism, can respond to the challenges that they now face. The Government have been accused of presiding over a £15 billion trade deficit in tourism, and we are trying to give the industry the tools to get on and increase its competitiveness and productivity. That is very important to the British economy, and to the quality of life of our citizens, and unless we modernise areas such as gambling and licensing, it will not happen.
	We believe that the balance that we have achieved in modernising the law to bring it into the 21st century, operating in a joined-up way with local authorities, will have a major impact on the economy and the quality of life of many of the citizens of this nation.

Malcolm Moss: The Minister has already confirmed that the publication of the guidance is four months later than originally planned. Given the problems that that unacceptable and unnecessary delay is causing local authorities in planning ahead to implement the new licensing regime by the due date, are they right to ask if that delay has been caused by interdepartmental in-fighting between the Minister's Department and the Home Office?

Richard Caborn: I do not know what the definition of interdepartmental fighting is. If it is about having a dialogue with colleagues in other Departments, that is probably how the Tories, too, operated in government. What I am saying, in answer to the reasonable question that has been asked, is that we are trying to modernise legislation so as to have an impact on the economy of this nation. Local authorities and many others are asking for that. If the hon. Gentleman wants to be pedantic and dance on the head of a pin about the four months, that is fine, but we are answering the serious questions that we are being asked by saying that we are giving local authorities and the industries the tools to make them more competitive and productive, thus bringing our people a better quality of life.

Museum Exchanges (Greece)

Andrew Dismore: What discussions she has had with the Greek government over exchanges of artefacts for exhibition in museums.

Estelle Morris: Neither my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State nor I have had discussions with the current Greek Government about such exchanges.

Andrew Dismore: It will come as no surprise to my right hon. Friend that I am particularly concerned about the Parthenon sculptures. Does she believe that the offer advanced by the previous Greek Government was good, in that it would not only have helped to deal with the British Museum's financial problems through the extra income that such exchange programmes would have generated, but would have provided additional resources and exhibitions for regional museums, which currently miss out because the Parthenon sculptures are in London? Is it not about time that the sculptures went back to their proper home in Athens?

Estelle Morris: I am not surprised that my hon. Friend's question is about the Parthenon sculptures; I recognise his keen interest in that subject, and his expertise. However, the position in law is that this is a matter for the British Museum; it should stay that way, and it will. There is a lot of difference between what people speculate about and read in the press, and what is in any offer that has come from the Greek Government to the British Museum. My understanding is that the matter to which my hon. Friend referred never went in detail to the British Museum to enable it to reply. Any offer that the Greek Government wish to make will be sent to the British Museum, and I have no doubt that if that happened, the museum would consider it and reply. This is not a matter for Governments of any political hue, and that will remain the position of the Labour party.

Boris Johnson: Does the Minister agree that there is no point whatsoever in sending the Parthenon marbles back to Athens, since there is no prospect of those sculptures ever being viewed in situ on the temple? To do so would be to rip the heart out of the British Museum, which is one of the great cultural landmarks of Europe, and whose defence ought to be a matter for the Minister and her Ministry.

Estelle Morris: There are many facets to this debate, and I take the hon. Gentleman's points. The British Museum contains world collections and receives more than 4.6 million visitors every year. People can see historic artefacts and heritage items gathered in one place. Although this is not quite to do with the hon. Gentleman's point, the museum in Athens that could house the Parthenon sculptures, were they to be returned, is not yet ready, and we have no date for when it will be. In that respect, he was right. I am pleased that the sculptures are in the British Museum and part of a world collection. I am pleased that the number of people able to visit is increasing year by year.

Tim Loughton: I congratulate the Minister on that answer and on not listening to and succumbing to the siren voices of the decontextualising iconoclasts on her Back Benches. Will she send her congratulations to the New Democracy party Government in Greece, who have put the brakes on the Acropolis museum, which risks destroying seven levels of archaeology across a 10-acre site, including sculpture factories and other important relics? Will she concentrate on putting the marbles in the place where they are best viewed by the most people in a proper classical context—the British Museum?

Estelle Morris: I take the hon. Gentleman's last point; the sculptures are well displayed and there are more than 4 million visitors a year. That will continue.
	We have had no formal approaches or statements from the new Greek Government about the museum or their attitude towards the Parthenon sculptures, although I might be able to guess what those would be. I join the hon. Gentleman in rejoicing at the fact that the United Kingdom has a museum of the stature of the British Museum, exhibiting such artefacts in such a wonderful way that people not only from this country but from throughout Europe and the world can see what we have to offer.

Gambling

John Greenway: What plans she has to promote social responsibility within the gambling industry.

Tessa Jowell: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman and his Committee for its excellent work in scrutinising the draft gambling Bill. The Government will respond in the next two months. This is another good example of how pre-legislative scrutiny for Bills of this kind is critical to ensuring that a proper balance is struck between modernising the law and the right level of protection for the public. It is important to make it clear that the modernisation of what are widely recognised as outdated gambling laws will be characterised not by a free-for-all, as has been misleadingly reported, but by a clear obligation on all gambling businesses to act in a socially responsible way, for which the hon. Gentleman's Committee argued so powerfully.

John Greenway: I am grateful for the right hon. Lady's response. The common threads running through the Joint Committee's report are concern about problem gambling and the need to ensure that reform does not lead to any increase in it. When she considers all the report's conclusions, which I appreciate will take some time, will she bear in mind the importance of retaining a crime-free and socially responsible gambling industry in the United Kingdom and avoiding the problems that lead to problem gambling, which are associated with too-easy access to high-value gaming machines?

Tessa Jowell: I do indeed accept the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. The three licensing objectives that form the architecture for the legislation—fairness, keeping gambling crime free and protection of children—are a practical expression of the broader objective of social responsibility on the part of those who are involved in the industry. In pursuit of getting the balance right, and because I share so strongly the concerns that people should continue to be protected, that we do not see a disproportionate increase in problem gambling, and that children do not gain greater access to gambling, I have consulted widely with the Churches and with children's organisations so that we are well aware of their views as the legislation takes its final form.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

The hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—

Postal Voting

Bob Russell: What discussions the commission has held on the security of postal ballot papers delivered to premises in multiple occupation.

Peter Viggers: The security of postal ballot paper delivery, including delivery to houses in multiple occupation, has been discussed by the commission on several occasions. Those have included meetings with the Parliamentary Parties Panel, the Local Government Association and the regional returning officers for the European parliamentary elections.

Bob Russell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Will he give me an assurance that every returning officer will be instructed to issue to every candidate and agent notice of the consequences of any illegal activities connected with the improper use of postal votes?

Peter Viggers: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point and the Commission recognises the concern that he expresses. In order to minimise the risk of fraud in relation to postal votes, the commission is developing a series of tools for use by local administrators, including best practice guidance on delivery to multiple occupation households. The guidance is planned for publication later this year and will take on board the experience of the pilot schemes planned for this June.

Gordon Marsden: May I suggest that the Commission take note of what has already happened in areas with many houses in multiple occupation that have run all-postal vote pilot schemes, such as in my own borough in Blackpool? It obviously has many HMOs but few problems were reported with the all-postal ballot last time.

Peter Viggers: The hon. Gentleman balances the point. The Commission has made it clear in its published reports that it is convinced that the risks of personation and intimidation must be addressed through specific changes to the law before all-postal voting is made widely available. However, the Commission also argues that the benefits of all-postal voting in terms of increased convenience and turnout are significant and demonstrable.

Peter Bottomley: Will my hon. Friend ask the commission to ensure that after the next round of postal voting in major elections it will publish research that shows those areas with unusually high or low participation? I can understand why the commission would not wish to publish its methods of research in advance, but we need to see afterwards what has happened.

Peter Viggers: The Commission intends to carry out scrupulous research and I think that my hon. Friend's point should be covered. However, it will be drawn to the Commission's attention.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Church of England (Charitable Status)

Hugh Bayley: If he will make a statement on the charitable status of the Church of England.

David Lammy: With permission, I shall answer Church Commissioners questions on behalf of the Second Church Estates Commissioner, my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell).
	The Church of England embraces many legal entities of various kinds that fulfil the legal requirements for charitable status. For example, the Church Commissioners are such a body.

Hugh Bayley: In view of the great problems of insolvency at Bradford cathedral, and the difficulty that those have caused for my constituents, who have not been paid a debt of more than £100,000, does my hon. Friend agree that all Church of England bodies, including cathedrals, should be regulated as strictly as registered charities? In order for that to take place, existing charity law needs to be amended, as I hope that it will be in the forthcoming charities Bill.

David Lammy: The Church of England is committed to seeing that all charities, including religious bodies, are adequately regulated. My hon. Friend has indicated that the Government hope to produce a draft bill on charities legislation in this Session and I know that the Church of England and the Archbishops Council are in close dialogue with them on such matters. We hope to see progress in due course.

Anne McIntosh: What would be the consequences of a church within the Church of England becoming insolvent and going bankrupt?

David Lammy: The hon. Lady will be aware of the different status of the various church bodies within the Church of England. The issue of cathedrals has caused interest in the House. The Cathedrals Measure 1999 means that cathedrals have greater transparency, accountability and compliance. That legislation came into place subsequent to some of the problems raised by my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley).

ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

The hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—

Postal Voting

Crispin Blunt: If he will invite the commission to examine the potential effect on the electoral process of incumbent elected representatives using resources available to them by virtue of their office to seek to register voters for postal votes.

Peter Viggers: If my hon. Friend cares to put that suggestion to the chairman of the Electoral Commission, I am sure that it will give it due consideration. The commission recently published a draft code of conduct for political parties, candidates and canvassers on the handling of postal voting applications and postal ballot papers, the impact of which will be assessed following the election scheduled for June.

Crispin Blunt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. I have already put my suggestion to the commission and hope that he will add his voice, in his representative capacity, to my call for it to be considered. Does he accept that there is a serious potential for abuse if incumbents, when choosing those of their constituents whom they are going to invite to take postal votes, use resources available to them through their incumbency? Will he more widely invite the commission to examine the whole issue of unfair advantages that come to incumbents through the resources available to them from their office, as far as future elections are concerned?

Peter Viggers: I am sure that we all want to encourage the maximum use of postal votes, but that must be done within appropriate rules. If my hon. Friend is referring to rules relating to the use of parliamentary stationery, that is a matter for the Serjeant at Arms.

Brian Iddon: My constituency will vote entirely through postal votes. I am concerned that 7,500 people have disappeared from the current register when compared with the previous register. What evidence has the hon. Gentleman got that local authorities are doing spot checks to ensure that as many people are on the current register as there should be?

Peter Viggers: This is a slightly different point, as I think the hon. Gentleman would accept. The commission is seized of the necessity of ensuring that the register is as complete and up to date as possible, and has made recommendations to the Government on that basis.

David Heath: The Electoral Commission received considerable publicity for its proposals on the age of voting and perhaps rather less publicity for two rather important documents: the draft code of conduct for political parties, candidates and canvassers, mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, and "Perceptions of Electoral Fraud in Great Britain", both of which are relevant in the light of the recent successful prosecution of a councillor—Conservative, as it happens—in Guildford for electoral fraud. Is it not the case that the draft code of conduct should be in the hands of every candidate and electoral agent before the start of the electoral process, so that they are clear about what they are expected to do in the handling of registration of postal votes and, more importantly, what they are expected not to do?

Peter Viggers: The draft code was published last Friday. It is my understanding that a copy was sent to each hon. Member. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, however. Every candidate should have access to guidance from the Electoral Commission, and I shall pass that point on to it.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Bishops' Drivers

Michael Fabricant: If he will make a statement on the policy of the Commissioners concerning the provision of drivers for use by bishops.

David Lammy: I have been asked to reply.
	The Church Commissioners continue to fund drivers for bishops when there is a need. This helps to ensure the best use of a bishop's energy and time, on which many calls are made.

Michael Fabricant: I am grateful for that reply and it makes sound sense to me. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in dioceses such as Lichfield, for example, hundreds of square miles need to be covered, reaching right up to the Welsh border? Will he resist those envious voices who say that bishops should not be provided with drivers? Perhaps before they lose their drivers, Ministers, who just use their cars to drive from one end of Whitehall to Parliament—I am not, of course, referring to the hon. Gentleman—should lose their drivers first.

David Lammy: The hon. Gentleman is right that bishops' commitments are many and varied, and they often work from early in the morning until late at night. By definition, they work seven days a week. The Lichfield diocese is large, and I am sure that when the commissioners look at the bishop's circumstances they will bear that in mind.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

The hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—

Electoral Registration

Andrew Love: What plans the commission has to reform the process of voter registration.

Peter Viggers: The commission published a report last year on the electoral registration process that made a number of recommendations to the Government on changes to the law and identified good practice in the management of the registration process.

Andrew Love: In the three years to 2003, more than 3,700 electors disappeared from my register. In some areas, the proportion on the register is estimated to be less than 90 per cent., yet in a written parliamentary reply I was told that statistics are not kept nationally on people prosecuted for not returning an electoral registration form. Does the Electoral Commission think that the prosecution of people who have not returned electoral registration forms plays a role in the effort to increase the numbers eligible to vote?

Peter Viggers: The commission does not have an enforcement role in electoral registration, so does not hold figures on prosecutions. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, but as the commission does not have an enforcement role at present, it is difficult for it to act. I am sure, however, that it will consider the hon. Gentleman's point carefully.

Political Engagement

Joan Walley: If he will make a statement on the joint report of the Electoral Commission and the Hansard Society entitled "An Audit of Political Engagement".

Peter Viggers: I understand from the chairman that the report was designed to promote discussion and debate about political engagement in the United Kingdom. The audit uses 16 indicators of engagement based on a survey of the public by MORI. A copy of the report has been sent to all Members of Parliament, and copies have been placed in the Library.

Joan Walley: Given that 5 million fewer people voted in the 2001 general election than in the 1997 election, and given the widespread concern in the House about voter turnout, what more can the Electoral Commission do to make sure that politics matters to all age groups, including 18-year-olds and perhaps even younger people?

Peter Viggers: The purpose of the audit is to take a snapshot of public engagement in politics in the United Kingdom. The first audit is intended to act as a baseline against which future trends in political engagement can be measured annually. The aim is to help to inform everyone working to tackle the problem of political disengagement. The audit was developed with a practical application in mind so that we can facilitate action by individuals and institutions involved in politics.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Ministers of Religion (Employment Rights)

Huw Edwards: If he will make a statement on the Church Commissioners' support for employment rights for clergy and other ministers of religion.

David Lammy: I have been asked to reply.
	The Church Commissioners support the principle of employment rights for clergy and other ministers of religion, with certain exceptions, such as the right not to work on Sunday.

Huw Edwards: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer, and I hope that that principle includes protection against unfair dismissal for clergy in the Anglican Church. Could my hon. Friend give an assurance that the Church Commissioners will consider bringing clergy within the remit of anti-discrimination legislation as well?

David Lammy: The Archbishops Council has moved fast to tackle important reforms, and its clergy terms of service review group is working with dioceses, clergy, laity and the unions to consider relevant recommendations.

Ben Chapman: Does my hon. Friend understand that following the deliberations of the McClean committee, the clergy and others are waiting for a reaction, hopefully in short order? Can he urge the Church Commissioners to move as quickly as possible so that this can be resolved?

David Lammy: My hon. Friend has tremendous experience in this area, and has continued to campaign on the issue. The McClean committee reported in January, the General Synod considered the matter in February, and the Archbishops Council looked at it at about the same time. I hope that they will offer conclusions on the recommendations as soon as possible.

Church Repairs (VAT)

Anne McIntosh: How many churches benefited from the grant to reimburse VAT on repairs in 2003-04.

David Lammy: I have been asked to reply.
	Two thousand nine hundred and thirty-nine listed places of worship benefited from the grant in 2003–04. Of those, 2,123 were Church of England buildings.

Anne McIntosh: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me what the cost of administering the grant was, out of that total sum?

David Lammy: I know the hon. Lady has great expertise in these matters. I answered a question on the matter when I last stood in for my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell). May I write to the hon. Lady with those figures?

Iraq and Middle East Peace Process

Tony Blair: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on my visit to the United States from 15 to 16 April. In New York I met the UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, and in Washington I met President Bush. With them both, the two main points of discussion were Iraq and the middle east peace process.
	There is no doubt that the present situation in Iraq is very difficult. Since mid-March the US has suffered 123 military fatalities, of whom 112 were killed in hostile action. One Ukrainian soldier was also killed during recent disturbances in Al Kut. A number of contractors have been targeted since the middle of March. In addition to a number of US civilians killed, one British, one Italian and one Canadian security guard, two Finnish businessmen, three German citizens and one Dutch contractor have been killed.
	Most security incidents continue to occur in the so-called "Sunni triangle" north-west of Baghdad. This includes the town of Fallujah, where the US marines have set up a cordon against Sunni insurgents. US forces are also deployed around Najaf, where Moqtada al-Sadr's supporters are still ensconced. There is currently a pause in military activity in Fallujah and Najaf to allow discussion with those involved. I hope the whole House will join me in passing on our deepest sympathy to the families of all those who have died, including the civilians, Iraqi and western citizens.
	We should not lose sight of what is happening across the majority of the country. Some 2,300 schools have been rehabilitated; $32 billion has been pledged for reconstruction; electricity generation is now above pre-conflict levels; higher oil production over the past four months has given Iraq $2 billion more in revenues than we expected even last November; and Iraqis are enjoying the benefits of a new Iraqi currency worth 40 per cent. more than the discredited Saddam dinar.
	Of course there will be resistance, as we are seeing in Fallujah and Najaf. It is absolutely clear what is going on there. All those who think they will lose out when Iraq becomes democratic—former Saddam supporters, foreign terrorists, militias led by extremist clerics—have a vested interest in seeking to delay or disrupt the transition towards democracy. They portray themselves as opponents of American occupation. In fact, they are opponents of allowing the Iraqi people the chance to choose their own leaders in free and fair elections. It is essential that the forces of reaction and terror do not prevail.
	The vast majority of Iraqis want a prosperous, stable, democratic Iraq, at peace with its neighbours; a force for good in the region and the world; international forces staying not a day longer than they have to; Iraq's wealth, which is Iraqi wealth, and Iraq's oil, which is Iraqi oil; and a country that is a sovereign, independent state governed by Iraqis for the benefit of Iraqi citizens. That is exactly what the coalition want. We are on their side against the small minority of those trying to disrupt this vision, and we have a political and military strategy to achieve it.
	Our work on reconstruction and investment in Iraq must continue, so that all parts of Iraq know that they have a place and a future in the new Iraq. We will redouble our efforts to build the necessary capability of the Iraqis themselves to take increased responsibility for security and law and order. We will hold absolutely to the 30 June timetable for the handover of sovereignty. We will work with the UN Secretary-General's representative, Mr. Brahimi, and all members of the UN Security Council to secure a new Security Council resolution to set out the new arrangements.
	The UN should have a central role, and it should be developed still further once the occupation ends on 30 June. The UN will have a vital role in the electoral and constitutional processes in 2005, and in co-ordinating international reconstruction assistance. I welcome the proposals made by Mr. Brahimi for this transition. As he says, the most important milestone is the election to be held in January 2005. Before then, there will be an interim Government from 1 July, to be formed before the transition, led, as he said, by a Prime Minister, with a President to act as head of state and two Vice-Presidents.
	I also welcome Mr Brahimi's suggestion of a large national conference to promote dialogue, consensus-building and reconciliation in Iraq, and to elect the consultative assembly to serve alongside the Government in the period up to January 2005 and to help prepare for elections.
	That is the vision. We will stay the course until it becomes the reality, and I hope that the whole international community will come together to support it. Whatever people's views of the wisdom of the war in Iraq, it must surely be in everyone's interest, not just in Iraq but across the world, for this vision of hope and democracy in the future of Iraq to prevail and to succeed.
	I also discussed the middle east peace process with Kofi Annan and President Bush. We condemn the targeted assassination of Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantissi, just as we condemn all terrorism, including that perpetrated by Hamas. We have to break out of this vicious cycle of suicide bombings and retaliation. Israel needs security, and the only lasting security will come from the stability of a solution to the middle east peace process with two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace.
	That is why we welcome the Israeli proposal to withdraw from Gaza and parts of the west bank. The road map remains the best way to peace, and disengagement from occupied territory can be an opportunity to return to it. Disengagement is not the final step; it has to be an important first step on the road to a final settlement.
	There was criticism that last week's announcement prejudged the issues of Palestine's final status: it should not and it does not. It is a statement of fact that those final status negotiations, when they come, cannot ignore the reality on the ground, but all issues, I repeat, are to be decided in that negotiation.
	Israeli withdrawal also provides a chance for full engagement by the international community. The Quartet should seize this opportunity to help the Palestinian Authority take the necessary economic, political and security measures so that a viable Palestinian state becomes not just a concept but a real possibility. I hope that a meeting of the Quartet can take place as soon as possible, and in any event not later than May to discuss this issue.
	Among the other issues that I discussed in both New York and Washington was Cyprus. I am sure that the House will join me in paying tribute to Kofi Annan, both for the skill and distinction with which he has led the UN during difficult times and specifically for the work that he has done on Cyprus. I hope that the people of Cyprus will see the benefits of the United Nation's plan and vote for it in the referendums on Saturday.
	I believe passionately that all these issues need to be seen in their wider context, for they are all linked. We are firm in response to terrorism and states proliferating weapons of mass destruction, but we must also be firm in tackling the breeding grounds of terrorism. That means broadening out the international agenda and confronting the issues upon which the terrorists pray: poverty, conflict and religious and ethnic strife.
	Both the UN Secretary-General's high level panel on the future of the UN and the G8, chaired this year by the US and next by the UK, can help establish to this broad and common agenda and set a forward direction for the whole international community. It is more essential than ever that they do so.

Michael Howard: I begin by welcoming the fact that the Prime Minister decided at the last minute that he, and not the Foreign Secretary, would make this statement on these vital international issues. We welcome this small U-turn by the Prime Minister, just as we welcome his big U-turn to hold a referendum on the European constitution.
	On the substance of the Prime Minister's statement, I entirely agree about Cyprus. On Iraq, we do not in any sense resile from our support for military action against Saddam's regime. We fully support the continuing deployment of British troops in Iraq. We pay tribute to them for their competence, professionalism and bravery in very difficult circumstances, and I join the Prime Minister in expressing our sympathy to the families of all those who have lost their lives in the circumstances that he described. I am sure that the Prime Minister will want to join me in condemning last night's roadside bomb that injured three British soldiers in Al Amarah, particularly since two members of the same regiment were injured on Saturday.
	Notwithstanding the very great difficulties that are clearly present in Iraq today, I agree with the Government that it is essential that we see this through; and, like the Prime Minister, I reject the criticism of those who suggest that we should now pull out.
	On the scale of the military commitment, can the Prime Minister tell the House whether British commanders in Iraq have asked for reinforcements and whether any such request has come from the Americans? What arrangements are being made to replace the 1,300-strong Spanish contingent whom, we are told, are to be withdrawn as soon as possible?
	The United Kingdom has been punching above its weight militarily, but are there not concerns that we have not done so diplomatically and politically? To make that point is not in any way to criticise David Richmond, as the Prime Minister falsely asserted on the radio on Saturday morning. I have no doubt that Mr. Richmond is an able man who is doing his best in difficult circumstances. I am not criticising Mr. Richmond—I am criticising the Prime Minister. Why has he refused to send to Baghdad a more senior and authoritative figure than Mr. Richmond? Did he raise in Washington last week the role of the British representative in Baghdad? Did he ask the President to designate the British representative as Ambassador Bremer's deputy? The Prime Minister will be aware that it has been widely reported that even Sir Jeremy Greenstock found it extremely difficult to make his voice heard at the headquarters of the coalition provisional authority. Is not that why, when British troops are in daily peril, there should be a powerful and senior British voice in Baghdad giving us a real say in the decisions that are made?
	As we approach the 30 June deadline for the transfer of sovereignty, I welcome the announcement that the United Nations will be involved in the handover, but what precisely will be the nature of that involvement? Will United Nations special envoy Brahimi have the same discretion and flexibility as he had in Afghanistan? Were he to come to the conclusion that the deadline of 30 June is unrealistic, would the deadline be reconsidered?
	Given that the deadline is little more than two months away, will the Prime Minister answer some crucial questions? How will those to whom power is to be transferred on 30 June be selected? Will that be a matter for the United Nations or for the coalition provisional authority? What powers will be transferred? In particular, who will be responsible for security? Yesterday, Ambassador Bremer said:
	"It is clear that Iraqi forces will not be able, on their own, to deal with these"—
	security—
	"threats by June 30 when an Iraqi government assumes sovereignty."
	After 30 June, will the new Iraqi authorities be able to decide on the way in which coalition troops are to be deployed, where they are to be deployed, in what force they are to be deployed, or whether they are to be deployed at all? Will the Iraqi authorities have the power to ask coalition troops to leave Iraq? Will they have the right to decide what happens to any insurgents apprehended or captured by coalition forces? Great concerns have been expressed over the performance of the Iraqi security forces during recent events. Did the Prime Minister raise with the President the nature of the steps that would be taken to improve the training and effectiveness of those forces?
	Finally on Iraq, does not everything that has happened over the past year reinforce the warnings that we gave at the time about the lack of a carefully thought through plan for reconstruction in post-war Iraq? [Laughter.] They are all on the record for the Prime Minister to see.
	On the middle east peace process, was the Prime Minister consulted by President Bush before the President announced his endorsement of Prime Minister Sharon's plans last week? Did the Prime Minister express to the President the view that given that the road map had been drawn up by the Quartet, it would have been more appropriate for the Quartet to be involved in further decisions of this kind than for them to be decided bilaterally between the United States and Israel?
	We welcome Israel's disengagement from Gaza and partial disengagement from the west bank, but does the Prime Minister agree that there will no lasting peace or security in the middle east without establishing a viable Palestinian state alongside a secure state of Israel? Will he confirm the following two principles? First, a two-state solution cannot be imposed and must be reached by agreement through negotiation. Secondly, all the elements of such an agreement, including the Palestinian right of return and Israeli west bank settlements, must be on the table for negotiation. Will he confirm that last week's statement by President Bush must be the start, not the end of a process?
	Given that the Prime Minister is always eager to secure the maximum possible agreement in the European Union on such issues, will he confirm that, if such agreement existed and the constitution were in force, the president of Europe, not the British Prime Minister, would have met the President of the United States last week?

Tony Blair: I should thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his support, which was, as ever, generous, on Iraq. On today's evidence, I cannot say that he would be someone with whom one would want to go tiger shooting. Throughout, he tries to give us general support and create as much particular mischief as he can. Although he says that his criticism of David Richmond's status is not a criticism of David Richmond, I do not believe that many people took it as anything else. When people do a difficult job on the ground and risk their lives, there is nothing worse than the Leader of the Opposition scoring points by saying that they are not suitable. That is exactly what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is doing and everybody knows it.
	Of course, the United Nations is involved up to and through the 30 June deadline, which Mr. Brahimi, as well as the United States and Britain, has reaffirmed. The UN will continue with the current consultation and dialogue, most notably with the key groups in Iraq. It is interesting that, in all Mr. Brahimi's negotiations, a majority of Iraqis, whether they are Kurds, Shi'a or Sunni, obviously want a broad-based constitution that represents all the different groups in Iraq. That is a cause for optimism, even in the current difficulties.
	It was always anticipated that there would be a security agreement with the new Iraqi Government after 30 June that would involve coalition troops. It was never contended that we could turn all security issues over to the Iraqi forces after 30 June. However, we are attempting to ensure that the Iraqi capability to conduct policing and civil defence work is extended and made as secure as possible, which is important. It is bound to be difficult to create an entirely new police and civil defence force, but I believe that we shall manage to do that. I emphasise that the difficulties in Fallujah and Najaf still exist and are acute; none the less, it is interesting to note that local leaders and Iraqi police and defence forces are involved, and I therefore hope that both issues can thus be resolved.
	Of course, it is essential to improve the training of the forces, but my overall view is that although difficulties exist—in some ways, they are to be expected—I reject the line that somehow there was no proper preparation. After the conflict, specific groups in Iraq were always going to try to dislodge the progress that was being made. It was always going to be difficult, but I believe that the difficulties are a reason for us to redouble our efforts, not to retire and retreat from the field.
	One would not quite have gathered from the right hon. and learned Gentleman's words that we are in agreement about the way forward on the middle east. Of course, it is right that the final status negotiations must include all the issues, whatever the expressed views of Israel or America. All I have been saying is that the fact that there is to be a disengagement or withdrawal by Israel from Gaza and the west bank at least gives not only the Palestinian Authority but the international community the chance to play a role in building the necessary economic, political and security capability in the Palestinian Authority in relation to the part over which it will have control once the Israelis withdraw from Gaza and parts of the west bank. I do not in any sense want to minimise the anger at other things that have been said or done over the past few days, but it is important that we at least focus on the possibilities that that disengagement offers.
	In respect of the European Union, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's position is absolute nonsense. There is nothing to prevent us from taking a view as an independent sovereign country, and it will be a pleasure to debate the reality rather than the myth.

Charles Kennedy: I echo the very proper expressions of condolence to our own forces and those of other countries, and increasingly to those civilians from countries around the world who are assisting in the rebuilding of Iraq and are now the focus of attack, and to the innocent Iraqis who continue to lose their lives in significant numbers.
	We agree with the Prime Minister that, whatever differences have preceded the position in which we find ourselves today, it is clear that the skill, bravery and sheer professionalism of the British forces should continue to be deployed to achieve the end that everyone wants to see—a stable and secure Iraq, for its own sake and the sake of its people and in the interests of the most difficult region in the world.
	The Prime Minister's discussions with the President took place against three very troubling backdrops. The first was what many of us regarded as the excessive military force being used by the Americans, especially in Fallujah. The second was the continuing political uncertainty for the people who want to see the transition, as we do—we agree that we should adhere to the June deadline—and who want to have that signal reinforced; it is welcome that it should be reinforced within Iraq. The third was the fact that the discussions were preceded by another deeply worrying act of unilateralism by the Bush Administration vis-à-vis the Prime Minister of Israel, which called into question many of the assumptions that this Government, with all-party support, have held dear and integral to the road map process and to existing UN Security Council resolutions.
	Watching the events of last week and listening to what the President was saying in his press conferences with the Prime Minister, many of us had a nagging doubt about the extent to which the President, although he undoubtedly gave the appearance of listening with great courtesy to the Prime Minister, actually chose to hear what we hope the Prime Minister was trying to get across in the course of the talks.
	It is undoubtedly welcome news that there is to be an increased role for the United Nations in Iraq. The current lack of legitimacy stems from the sidelining of the UN during the conflict. Will the Prime Minister acknowledge, however, that following the very dismissive terms in which many in and around the American Administration have spoken publicly about the UN, the warmer words that are now coming into play will have to be matched by deeds if they are to win the confidence of the international community? Perhaps he has already made that point to the President. The Prime Minister says that the UN will continue its present dialogue, and that he is encouraged by the efforts of Mr. Brahimi, as we must all be; but is he satisfied that the Americans will give the level of input that is so crucially required?
	Does the Prime Minister recognise that it might not be right to class everyone—as he and the President have—who is being driven into the hands of those whom he rightly describes as the terrorists and fanatics as being, by definition, terrorists and fanatics themselves? We saw what happened to those hundreds of women and children in Fallujah last week. They were not terrorists or fanatics, but when they see what is happening to their own domestic circumstances, the real tragedy is that some of the wilder elements get driven in the direction of the terrorists and fanatics. The Americans must surely understand that.
	As for the wider middle east peace process—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman must be heard. This is unfair.

Charles Kennedy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
	Will the Prime Minister confirm what his Foreign Secretary has said over the past few days—that the Israeli policy of targeted assassination is both unlawful and unjustified, and also counterproductive? Are the British Government making direct representations to the Israelis to that effect?
	In his statement, the Prime Minister said that the new position adopted by the Israelis and the Americans was a first step—the beginning of a new phase in the process. Mr. Sharon, however—both on the plane home to Israel and since arriving in his own country—has given every indication of seeing it as not a first but a final step. What will our position be in the light of that?
	Perhaps the Prime Minister will confirm or contradict this. We have heard that, during the build-up to the original decision to mount the war in Iraq, the Americans gave him the option of not participating. At the time, I asked him repeatedly whether he could envisage circumstances in which this country would not participate in unilateral action with the Americans but without UN sanction. He did not answer then. Will he now at least tell us whether the Americans made that option explicitly open to him?

Tony Blair: I find that last point somewhat extraordinary. Of course we always have the option of participating or not participating. We had to make a decision, and we actually made it finally in this House. We decided that we would participate. I have never made any secret of my belief that it was right that our troops were there. I do not think that that was ever secret.
	Let me deal with the right hon. Gentleman's other two points. I welcome what he said about the UK forces, which I consider right and responsible. Whatever differences there are over the war, it is right that we continue to deploy those forces and see this through. It must now be in everyone's interests to get Iraq resolved in the right way.
	I do not accept that we have ever wanted to sideline the UN. We made copious efforts to get the UN to back a final ultimatum to Saddam. We had already secured its backing, in resolution 1441, for a demand that Saddam comply and comply fully with what it said. Since then there have been no fewer than three further UN resolutions. The President and I agree that we should seek another resolution to put all issues connected with political and security measures in context and carry them through.
	I have not said that everyone who is angry about whatever action is being taken is a terrorist and a fanatic. There is no doubt, however, that those driving what is happening in Fallujah are terrorists and fanatics. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we must ensure that they cannot draw in other people.
	What happened in Fallujah arose from the brutal murder of civilian contractors, which was carried out in a particularly horrific way. I hope that, given the engagement of local leaders and the talks taking place between them, the Americans and other leaders from the Iraqi governing council, it will be possible to resolve the situation peacefully. We must, however, also state definitively—because this will be important for the new Iraq that we want to create—that we cannot allow a situation in which outside terrorists, clerics with their own militias or heavily armed gangs of insurgents try to run the country. That has been the tragedy of Iraq for many decades. It is surely right to say to all those people "If you have a particular point of view, stand in the elections. You must not try to get your way by means of violence when you cannot do so democratically."
	In respect of the middle east peace process, of course I confirm what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has said during the past few days about targeted assassinations. However, on the point about whether Mr. Sharon sees this step as a first or a final one—in the course of his press conference he also reaffirmed his support for the road map—I would simply say that despite the anger at statements made on the right of return for refugees and on settlements, which I understand, there is still an opportunity. From my conversations with European leaders at the weekend, I think that people recognise that, which is why the European Union statement welcomed the disengagement from Gaza and parts of the west bank.
	Of course this should not be a final step; of course it is not a final settlement. However, my point, very simply, is that it must be better than what we have now to have at least some disengagement from the occupied territory, provided that that disengagement is followed by active measures, supported by the international community, to give the Palestinians the economic and political strength and the security needed for the idea of a viable Palestinian state to become a realistic possibility. It cannot be right that we simply have disengagement, then allow a vacuum to develop. That is all that I am saying, and when people reflect on it they will see that whatever their anger about unilateral statements on the right of return for refugees and on settlements, it is still better to try to make something of this offer of disengagement—or this strategy of disengagement—than to do nothing.

Gerald Kaufman: Will my right hon. Friend reconfirm, in specific terms, that the policy of Her Majesty's Government, in accordance with United Nations Security Council resolution 446 and other UN Security Council resolutions, is that all 200 Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian territory are illegal and must be removed? Will he also reconfirm that the wall being built by the Israelis, biting deep into Palestinian territory and separating farmers from their land, workers from their jobs, pupils and students from their schools and universities, and sick people from their hospitals, is also illegal and must be removed?

Tony Blair: Our position remains entirely as we have set it out before. In respect of the security fence, I say absolutely unequivocally that it must not become part of a political settlement. The Foreign Secretary and I, and others, have made that position very clear. I simply repeat, however, that if such a disengagement from Gaza and parts of the west bank happens—including, incidentally, the removal of some 7,000 settlers from Gaza—it is important that the Palestinian Authority be able to step into that breach. That is the only point that I am making. We do not alter our position at all on the substance of the matter. The question will ultimately be, as it is with all such peace processes, whether people want to carry on making their statements, or whether they want to try to establish a different reality. That different reality must begin with the disengagement being followed by a process of reconstruction.

John Stanley: The Prime Minister said in his statement that the final settlement in the middle east cannot ignore the reality on the ground. Is it not the case that the reality behind Prime Minister Sharon's latest announcement, coupled with the ongoing building of the security wall, is that the Israeli Government are bent on a de facto annexation of significant parts of the west bank? Given that such a policy is both illegal and contrary to the road map, why is the Prime Minister going along with it?

Tony Blair: I have made it clear that I do not believe that the security fence can be used to annex territory. I want to make one other point, which it is fair to make, or we could end up, as is often in such situations, with an entirely one-sided debate. Even as we condemn the targeted assassinations of Hamas leaders, we should not forget that innocent Israeli citizens have died in large numbers as a result of terrorist acts in Israel—not in the occupied territories, incidentally, but in Israel itself. Obviously, any Government—particularly a democratic Government, as in Israel—will want to take measures to protect their citizens. I do not resile from anything I have said about this, but one of the problems with the situation is that people always see one particular point of view. There are two lots of suffering in this case and both must be dealt with.

Tam Dalyell: Is not the unpalatable truth that an occupying coalition force, far from curtailing violence, is seen more and more as an inspiration for it? Have not we reached a situation where many Iraqis have come to regard this as a war of liberation? In those circumstances, there are some of us who think that Mr. Zapatero is right and that—embarrassing though the loss of face may be—the coalition forces should be withdrawn.

Tony Blair: I do not deny for a single instant that the propaganda launched at the coalition is that we are an army of occupation that wants to stay there, irrespective of the views of the Iraqis, in order, on some days, to take their oil and, on other days, to occupy the country. That is the propaganda case that is being made. It happens to be false, as most people know and accept. The truth is that neither ourselves, the United States or any other country wants to remain a moment longer than is necessary to secure the conditions in which a proper political settlement can take place.
	I say to my hon. Friend, whose very strong views on this subject I understand, that if we were to withdraw coalition troops now and leave Iraq to the mercy of militias, insurgents and outside terrorists, the losers would not just be the whole of the middle east—the whole world, actually—but, most of all, the Iraqi people. Were he to talk to anyone in the British sector at Basra, he would know that, of course, the vast majority of Iraqis do not want their country to be occupied, but they want to make sure that when the occupation leaves, what takes over is the democratic will of the Iraqi people and not the will of extremists, fanatics and those who would take Iraq backwards.

John Maples: In the middle east peace process, we seem to be moving beyond the road map to the implementation of a settlement on the ground. I suggest to the Prime Minister that if we continue to pretend that the road map has life in it, or that the two parties under their present leaderships will negotiate a settlement to all of the issues, we will end up with a unilaterally imposed Israeli settlement on the ground. We ought to get the Quartet, at its meeting next month, to grab control of the issue, to attempt to develop a settlement of all the outstanding issues in dialogue with the parties—but without seeking to get them together in direct negotiations—and to seek to impose that settlement. The alternative is not the road map, but a unilaterally imposed Israeli settlement.

Tony Blair: The Quartet can come to whatever decisions it wishes, but I do not think that the choice is the one that the hon. Gentleman poses. The reason we are not in the road map is perfectly simple—the basic security measures that are supposed to be taken under the road map have not yet been taken. All that I am saying is that we cannot be in a worse position if, when the disengagement from Gaza and the west bank takes place, we move in on an international basis to develop the security, economic and political infrastructure that the Palestinians need. If we fail to do that, and if there are those in Israel who want de facto and unilaterally to create a settlement, they will gain from the inability of the Palestinians to run their affairs within the territory that they will occupy. That is why it is so important that we seize the opportunity that the disengagement offers us. I agree that it is important that the Quartet is fully involved, but the Quartet is not going to be able to negotiate the final status. That is unrealistic.

George Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that although the relationship between Israel and Palestine that he has just described is central, other states in the region have a role to play? Will he join me in urging Syria to play a constructive and credible part in what can be achieved in the region?

Tony Blair: The point that my hon. Friend makes is absolutely right. Syria, I hope, along with other countries, will realise that its support of terrorism and any sponsorship of terrorism is preventing us from getting back to the road map.

Alan Duncan: The Prime Minister publicly justifies his own actions on the basis of UN resolutions and international law. On what basis does he believe that President Bush is entitled to cede Palestinian negotiating positions without their consent, and why does he think that unilaterally sanctioning illegal townships bang in the middle of the west bank is going to do anything other than destroy any chance of a viable Palestinian state?

Tony Blair: President Bush made it clear several times—not just in the press conference with me, but in the one with Prime Minister Sharon—that, ultimately, these issues have to be decided by negotiation, and that remains the case. There are realities on the ground, and all the discussions that have taken place between the Israelis and the Palestinians throughout many peace processes have recognised that—but, ultimately, these things have to be decided in final status negotiations.

Richard Burden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that while President Bush was appearing on the White House lawn with Prime Minister Sharon, the United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs was producing its weekly report on the situation in the occupied territories? It referred to further land confiscations, ambulances being turned away from checkpoints, more houses being demolished, and a nursery school in Nablus being closed when Israeli forces entered it. Does he therefore understand the anger that exists throughout the Arab world and beyond, and why Israel felt that it had been given a green light to continue with its illegal policy of targeted assassinations? Does he agree that if this development is to be an opportunity for the peace process and not a threat, we must recognise that the road map is not the gift of the US, that the Quartet must establish its authority, and that disengagement must be real and military, as well as involving the dismantling of settlements? Does he further agree that the international community must accept its responsibility for an international presence in that part of the world, to ensure peace with justice for both sides?

Tony Blair: I agree with my hon. Friend to the extent that I understand the anger that exists in the middle east and the Arab world about these issues. I also believe it essential that the Quartet play a role, and we will obviously have to discuss with the Palestinian Authority exactly what that role would be in security terms. However, in principle my view is that the more the international community can be involved in helping the Palestinian Authority to have—and, in a sense, guaranteeing that it has—the wherewithal to move forward from any unilateral disengagement by the Israelis from Gaza and parts of the west bank, the better.
	That is precisely why I want there to be a meeting of the Quartet, hopefully in early May. At that meeting, we can put aside the rights and wrongs of what has happened in the past few days in terms of the statements made by America or Israel—or, indeed, by anyone else—and focus on what the Quartet can do to ensure that the Palestinian Authority can take advantage of unilateral disengagement, should it take place. It is worth pointing out that, had it not been for the other issues surrounding the announcement by the Israelis, much of the middle east would have welcomed in principle a unilateral disengagement from parts of the occupied territory.

Hywel Williams: In his statement, the Prime Minister mentioned 123 American fatalities, and the Ukrainian soldier and the US, British, Italian and Canadian civilians who have tragically been killed since mid-March. However, he made no reference to the number of Iraqis who were killed. Will he take this opportunity to address that omission, and will he tell the House whether he agrees with the head of the US army's central command, who said that these losses, whatever they may be, are the result of a judicious use of force?

Tony Blair: I did express our sympathy in respect of the Iraqi civilians who have also died. That is why we must ensure that we try to resolve the situation in Fallujah and Najaf as peacefully as possible, and that is what we are doing.

Robert Wareing: Will my right hon. Friend consider advice from me that is given quite freely? He could learn a lot from the experience of the former Soviet Union. It tried to impose its system of government on eastern European countries, but once they were free from military occupation they decided to go in a different direction. We cannot impose western-style democracy on Iraq, a country of a very different civilisation and culture. Once the occupation has ended, Iraq will determine which direction to go in, and at what pace.

Tony Blair: I rather think that the analogy with what happened with the Soviet Union is a little different from what my hon. Friend says. In fact, the moment those countries were free from repression, they chose democracy, and it is absolutely clear that that is what the majority of Iraqis want. There is an extraordinary attitude in some parts of the west that somehow democracy, human rights and the rule of law are western values. In my view, they are values of the human spirit. That is what people want, and what they opt for every time they are given the choice. In Iraq, we will have a process whereby, first, people vote in an assembly to draw up a final constitution, and then there will be a democratic vote in elections. I would have thought that everybody, no matter what their view on the war in Iraq, would support that.

Patrick Cormack: In the crucial days leading up to 30 June, is there not a case for having a British representative of ministerial rank and importance—somebody like Lord Robertson—overseeing what happens from Britain's point of view?

Tony Blair: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I, the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary remain heavily engaged in the issue. The best way of operating with the coalition provisional authority is through the mechanism that we have.
	The Leader of the Opposition mentioned Jeremy Greenstock, whose view is that David Richmond is the best person for the job, has the experience and is trusted by the Americans. It is important to realise that everything that happens in any part of Iraq affects the whole country. Down in the south, the British forces and civilians are in control, while around Baghdad it is predominantly American forces and civilians. It is important to have the right partnership with them so that we can influence the decisions that are made. I genuinely believe that to be the case now. Of course, we must always keep the matter under review but, first, Jeremy Greenstock and then David Richmond have done a very good job.
	If people from inside Iraq, either members of the governing council or our military personnel, were saying to us, "Look, this isn't the right way of working", of course we would listen very carefully, but they are not. There are certain issues that have to be resolved at a Government-to-Government level as well.

Peter Kilfoyle: Once again, the Prime Minister seems to make a cogent case on the middle east, but is not the truth that the 30 June deadline, the latter-day conversion to the United Nations and the U-turn on the fundamental human rights of Palestinians are more to do with the re-election of the President than with the longer-term stability of that troubled part of the world? Is not it also the case that Sharon will continue to assassinate with impunity because there is nothing that anyone can or will do about it, and that post-30 June, heavy-handed American military activity will determine the future of Iraq, and certainly not the United Nations?

Tony Blair: The United Nations will have a key and central role in the political transition. When American troops are suffering losses and coming under attack from terrorists or insurgents, they have a difficult position to maintain.
	On the middle east peace process, I return to the point that I have made constantly. People can argue about what the President said or what the Prime Minister of Israel said, and about their motivations, but that does not really profit anyone, because ultimately the question is what we can do about the situation. My point is that if one big reality on the ground changes—the withdrawal by Israel from the whole of Gaza and parts of the west bank—that should not be looked in the mouth but should be built upon.

Desmond Swayne: Given that the 3rd UK Armoured Division and the coalition provisional authority conducted successful local government elections in southern Iraq on a household franchise based on the ration card system last August and September, does the Prime Minister agree that the best way to undermine the likes of Maqtadr al Sadr, and to show how few people they represent, is to move swiftly to national elections in Iraq?

Tony Blair: First, let me thank the hon. Gentleman again for his service in Iraq. Secondly, I entirely agree with what he said. That is absolutely right, and it shows that people are perfectly prepared to participate in those elections and want to do so. What is happening in Iraq at the moment is that we are being put to the test because some of these groups wonder whether we have the commitment to see it through. That is what they wonder and many people in Iraq have never known democracy—they have had a brutal repression for more than three decades. They are asking whether things are really going to change, and we have to give them the confidence that they will.

Louise Ellman: I thank my right hon. Friend for his tireless work in trying to bring peace and justice to both Palestinians and Israelis. Does he agree that the withdrawal of about 7,000 Israeli settlers from Gaza should be a cause for celebration, not for grudging acceptance? What does he believe the Government can do to ensure that we move forward to negotiations based on the road map and the Geneva protocols—put together by progressive Israelis and Palestinians and based on the important principle of land for peace?

Tony Blair: I agree with what my hon. Friend says, and it is worth pointing out that, had the Palestinians come forward several months ago to demand that 7,000 settlers be moved from Gaza and that Israel disengaged unilaterally from Gaza and parts of the west bank, people would have thought that it was a bold negotiating ploy. What has happened is that surrounding issues—what was said about final status questions such as right of return and so on—have obscured the fact that, underneath all that, there is something that we can work with.

Julian Lewis: If, God forbid, al-Qaeda succeeded in killing as many civilians in the United Kingdom as Hamas has succeeded in killing in Israel, would the Prime Minister rule out a policy of targeted assassination of Osama bin Laden?

Tony Blair: It is important that we act, all the way through, in accordance with international law. That is what we should do and we have made our position clear on targeted assassinations. I did say in my statement, which I repeat, that we condemn the terrorist atrocities committed by Hamas.

Glenda Jackson: Does the military and political strategy, to which the Prime Minister referred, mean that the British Government supported the level and type of action visited on Fallujah and Najaf, in which by far the greatest loss of life was suffered by innocent Iraqi civilians? Does that also mean that the British Government would endorse such actions, should they become necessary in future?

Tony Blair: It is worth looking at what is happening now, which is that we are trying peacefully to resolve the situation in Fallujah. It is a difficult situation when four contractors are taken away and brutally murdered, and there was bound to be a reaction to it. However, I hope that we can resolve the issues in Fallujah in a peaceful way, which is what we are trying to do.

Jonathan Sayeed: Has one of the effects of the war in Iraq and the lack of a coherent exit strategy been to increase the terrorist threat not only in Iraq, but here in the UK?

Tony Blair: There is a perfectly coherent exit strategy, which is to make sure that the Iraqi people can enjoy the same freedom as we enjoy. There is no reason why they should not, particularly if they support the new constitution and if they are allowed to support it by the people who are attacking them. I think that it is important that we maintain that situation.
	As for being a terrorist target, I honestly think that the hon. Gentleman does a disservice to us all in suggesting that people in al-Qaeda and other terrorists would somehow be silent if the problems in Iraq did not exist. These are the people who want us to withdraw from Afghanistan—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says that it might increase the threat, but what could be a bigger threat than that represented by 11 September—which happened, let me remind him, before we were in Iraq or Afghanistan? The truth is that if we withdrew from Iraq, we would be told to withdraw from Afghanistan, and if we withdrew from Afghanistan, we would be told to withdraw from the whole of the middle east, and then we would be made to withdraw even more—[Interruption.] Well, the hon. Gentleman asked whether we had not made ourselves a bigger target by our action in Iraq. My answer is that we are a target for these people by our very existence and the values we believe in, and that the only way to defeat them is to get after them.

Joan Ruddock: A month ago I was in Gaza with Christian Aid, and I saw the humanitarian, economic and political crisis there. I understand why my right hon. Friend has welcomed, as I would, the withdrawal from the settlements, but does he accept that timing is everything and that if Israel continued to bulldoze the land in the perimeter areas and to have a complete crackdown, with no freedom of movement for Palestinians, there would be no peace and very little hope? It is essential that when he speaks with the Quartet, President Bush supports that move and that the international community is in there immediately, because no viable Palestinian state will be made simply by withdrawal from settlements.

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend is right to say that, obviously, we must ensure that a further entirely unjustified reality is not created on the ground, but one of the key ways of preventing that is to get a proper security plan in place on the Palestinian side. While the terrorist attacks occur within Israel, there will be retaliation—that is a fact—and then the cycle of terrorism and retaliation will become worse. That is why it is important that we act as an international community.

Edward Garnier: In his statement, the Prime Minister said that the United Nations should have a central role, and will have a vital role, post-30 June—but the United Nations has no armed forces nor external civil service, except those volunteered by the member states. Beyond the existing members of the coalition, what other countries have volunteered assistance?

Tony Blair: There are about 30 countries in the coalition—whether we can draw more people in depends in part on how we improve the security situation. However, the United Nations role is not, and never was intended to be, to carry out the security itself. The United Nations would not want to do that. The United Nations role is to ensure that the international community underscores the legitimacy of what is happening. That means, for example, that with the oil wealth, the United Nations, through its various organisations, can be a signatory to the account to ensure that the Iraqi oil money is used for the Iraqis, and is seen to be so. I think that that is a role that the United Nations can play, and it is particularly important in connection with the details of the political transition.

Peter Pike: In condemning what originally happened in Fallujah, does my right hon. Friend recognise that many of us also condemn what has happened there since and the number of Iraqi civilians who have died? That cannot be condoned or acceptable. Does my right hon. Friend also recognise that despite the fact that he is 100 per cent. committed to the road map, many of us do not believe that President Bush and Sharon have the same objective as he does for the destination of that road map?

Tony Blair: On the latter point, President Bush restated his commitment several times. The road map is not moving forward because of the problems of security; that is why it is important that we deal with those. There is no other way of getting back into the road map.

John Redwood: I warmly welcome the Prime Minister's enthusiasm for democracy in Iraq—and now at home, on the issue of Europe. That is great news. Can he tell us how long he thinks British troops will need to stay in Iraq to supervise the transition, and whether we will need to reinforce?

Tony Blair: We cannot be sure about the length of stay of British troops at this point in time; it depends upon making sure that the security situation is sorted out. However, it is not coincidental that the violence is happening in the run-up to 30 June. Its purpose is to stop us making progress towards 30 June—and if people think that they can do that, their propaganda that we do not want to give them democracy gets off the ground. That is what it is all about, and that is why we have got to hold firm, so perhaps post-30 June I shall be in a better position to respond.

Alice Mahon: Everybody in the House will condemn the barbaric killing of the four contractors in Falluja, but independent sources estimate that about 700 civilians have been killed there, including 80 children, and thousands have been injured. Does the Prime Minister condemn the disproportionate use of force by the United States against the citizens of Falluja? Is he willing to support an independent United Nations inquiry into just what went on there, or will we see yet more Fallujas as the violence escalates?

Tony Blair: I hope very much that we do not, and that is what I am working for. I hope that we can see a peaceful resolution.

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 6 November 2003],
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 17th December 2002, 8th September 2003 and 8th December 2003;
	Consideration of Lords Amendments
	1.   Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at today's sitting.
	2.   Proceedings shall be taken in the order shown in the following Table.
	3.   The proceedings shown in the first column of the Table shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column.
	
		
			  
			 Proceedings Time for conclusion of proceedings 
			 Lords Amendments 1 to 5 One and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments. 
			 Lords Amendments 21 to 23, 26, 27, 41, 42, 45 to 47, 6 to 20, 24, 25, 28 to 40, 43, 44, 48 to 143 The moment of interruption. 
		
	
	Subsequent stages
	4.   Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question put.
	5.   Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement—[Keith Hill.]
	The House divided: Ayes 260, Noes 149.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill

[Relevant documents: The Eighth Report (HC 427) and the Tenth Report (HC 503) of Session 2003–04 from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on the Committee's continuing scrutiny of Bills.]
	Lords amendments considered.

New Clause
	 — 
	Application Of Part 1

Lords amendment: No. 1.

Keith Hill: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2, 4 and 5 and the Government motions to disagree thereto.

Keith Hill: Before I come to the substance of our disagreement with the other place, I wish to sound a note of recognition of and appreciation for their lordships' scrutiny of the Bill. As the House will be aware, the Bill was subject to lengthy and detailed scrutiny in the other place, where there was a total of 45 hours of debate. Almost 150 amendments were tabled, 50 of which were substantive and responded to serious concerns expressed at various stages in the Commons and the other place. I do not doubt that in many respects the Bill has emerged as a better measure as a result of their lordships' scrutiny, which is why the Government will signify their acceptance of a large number of Lords amendments today.
	The amendments fall into 26 groups, and we propose to accept 19 of them, which is a fair-minded and reasonable response. A fair-minded and reasonable observer, however, would concede that the planning system that we inherited is prone to excessive delay and inefficiency in delivery. In our proposals to expand the opportunities for community involvement in the front-loading of the system we are making the planning system more democratic and efficient, but we are also determined to create a faster and more flexible planning system. Our disagreements with the Lords revolve around the issue of greater speed and flexibility, and those disagreements are at the heart of the first group of amendments.

John Redwood: rose—

Keith Hill: I shall give way to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), although his intervention is a little premature.

John Redwood: If things are going to be more democratic, why cannot a local community that wants less development than the Secretary of State lays down have its will if it has voted for that in a free election for a council or regional assembly?

Keith Hill: The right hon. Gentleman should bear in mind the fact that the regional planning system, which includes the identification of housing numbers, was introduced by the Administration of whom he was such a distinguished representative way back in 1990. Since 1990, regional planning bodies have indeed had those powers. Local authorities are required to pay attention to the guidance issued by regional planning bodies, and in many respects that is a material consideration in local planning decisions.

John Hayes: Surely, the Minister acknowledges the desirability of making those powers democratic. He argued for democracy, but how can it be democratic to give powers to regions without an assembly?

Keith Hill: If the hon. Gentleman is patient, in due course we shall come to the Opposition's interesting commitment to elected regional assemblies in connection with the Bill.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Minister has raised one of the most contentious matters in the Bill—housing targets, which are completely different from those set under the existing system. Under the new system, housing targets will be handed down by the regional planning body, and must be implemented by the local authority, whether it likes it or not. Will the Minister admit that that is quite different from the present system?

Keith Hill: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. Since the introduction of the method by his own Administration, housing targets have been identified by regional planning bodies. How else was the figure of 930,000 extra houses in London and the wider south-east identified under regional planning guidance note 9? Housing targets have always been in existence, and it is for local authorities to pay heed to them. Powers exist to influence local authorities in the delivery of those targets.
	Having been fairly generous in giving way to official Opposition Members, I shall now address the amendments before us. They would prevent the reform of the regional planning system. The proposition arising from the amendments is that there should be regional spatial strategies and regional planning bodies only in areas where elected regional assemblies have been established. In such regions, the regional spatial strategy would have to have regard to the Secretary of State's spatial policies for the region. The amendments offer no solutions to the problems with our present system of plans. Instead, they would directly undermine our reforms.
	We need strong regional planning. Regional planning policies that form part of the local development plan are needed to address the particular opportunities and challenges faced by an individual region. Effective regional planning policy is vital to tackle historic regional disparities and respond to the challenges of the modern knowledge economy. We need strong local plans at a level where the community can engage with the process of plan making, and where proposals to develop particular sites can be properly debated.
	It is vital that we make regional spatial strategies statutory, and therefore part of the local development plan. We cannot and should not continue with a system where outdated lower level plans can take precedence over more up-to-date regional plans in key planning decisions. We need a system for strategic planning that is based around areas that are interdependent on the ground, not one that is constrained by administrative boundaries. County boundaries do not work as the basis for effective strategic planning. Many strategic planning issues cut across county boundaries and are best dealt with at regional or sub-regional level.

Matthew Green: The Minister said that older local plans should not be allowed to block more modern, up-to-the-minute regional plans. In many parts of the country, out-of-date Government regional plans are blocking up-to-date modern local plans. Does he not want the latest plan, regardless whether it is local or regional, to have preference?

Keith Hill: The hon. Gentleman is right. There are plans at various stages of development, but a large proportion of local plans—I do not recall the exact proportion, but I know that we adumbrated the figure in Committee—are out of date. The Bill, when enacted, will provide the opportunity for regional plans to be developed. In a sense, they represent the first stage in the sequence that we seek to introduce. There is a clear chronology, which begins at the regional level of planning.
	The regional planning process needs to be driven forward by bodies able to represent the region and take a strategic view. Regional chambers are best placed to fulfil that role. This is not a new departure. Responsibility for preparing regional strategies already rests with regional planning bodies, which since 1 April this year have been the regional chamber in each region. We are proposing that these arrangements should continue, provided the chamber is sufficiently inclusive.
	We are not suddenly transferring powers from counties to regions. Under the existing system, county structure plans should be in line with and follow the strategic planning framework set in regional planning guidance. What we are doing is removing a filter that has slowed down the expression of strategic regional policies in local plans. We are clearing out a system that allows out-of-date structure plans to take precedence over up-to-date regional plans. Chambers are, of course, not directly elected, but they are representative of both of local authorities and wider stakeholders in the region. Local authority members represent their local authority on the regional planning body. Members from other stakeholder groups, such as business or the voluntary sector, will equally speak up for the interests that they represent. Through legislation and guidance, we are ensuring that everyone in the region with an interest can get involved in the regional planning process. There will be consultation, representations and, in all but the most exceptional circumstances, an examination in public conducted by an independent panel.
	Ultimately, the regional spatial strategy is the Secretary of State's document and he is democratically accountable for it to the electorate and the House. It is for that reason that the Bill specifies that the regional spatial strategy must set out the Secretary of State's policies for the region. The Secretary of State has regional planning policies and is accountable for them, now and under our proposed new regional planning system, because that is the best approach with our current governance arrangement. If an elected regional assembly were in place to play that role, the Secretary of State would not need any spatial policies for that region.

Andrew Selous: The Minister talks about public consultation, and we would all welcome that provided that what the public say is occasionally listened to and acted on, but is he aware that my constituents had to travel some 80 miles up to Northampton in order to give their views on the plans currently in force for south Bedfordshire? Does he think that that is an acceptable distance for local people to have to travel?

Keith Hill: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but a regional body must always operate from a particular location, which, in some circumstances, may be as far as 80 miles away, and I strongly suspect that in other parts of the country it could be even further away. I am sorry for the inconvenience to the hon. Gentleman's constituents—I mean that quite seriously—and I dare say that we will be hearing more about their concerns both today and at oral questions on Wednesday, but the important fact is that the opportunity to make the representation is there and that will be strengthened under the Bill in the context of amendments passed in the other place that we propose to accept.
	The official Opposition, in their new-found passion for elected regional assemblies—I shall resist further comment at this stage—now apparently want us to delay our reforms until elected regional assemblies are in place, but that would simply delay putting into place the more effective planning system that we so urgently need. There are too many plans and too much confusion. Our reforms will produce a simpler, faster, more flexible system that creates plans and delivers policies at the right level. They are the right thing to do and they are the right thing to do now.

Matthew Green: The Minister has made a slight error. He talks about the official Opposition being fans of regional assemblies. He is teasing them of course, but he would acknowledge that it was a Liberal Democrat amendment in the Lords, which the Conservatives, Cross-Benchers and, I believe, some Labour Members in the other place, voted for, that was the main thrust of the sunrise clause that prevents the powers from being transferred.

Keith Hill: I certainly acknowledge that the Liberal Democrats have shown unusual consistency in this matter.
	Our planning reforms will produce a simpler, more comprehensible system. The amendments will, I fear, just cause more confusion. Where elected regional assemblies are established it is right that they should take over responsibility for regional planning. But we should not conflate that with reforming the planning system. That is something that needs to happen now, and for that reason the Government resist the amendments.

John Hayes: The Minister, as ever, made a worthy effort to advance a weak case. The great constitutionalist Bagehot said of Peel that he was a first-rate man with a second-rate creed, and the Minister, rather like him, has struggled to convince this packed House. I see that Labour Members in particular have turned out in considerable numbers to support the Minister, probably mindful of the weakness of the case. He knows that the Bill is at best a wasted opportunity to reform a planning system too cumbersome and bureaucratic for developers, often too insensitive to environmental and aesthetic considerations, and too esoteric for almost everyone. At worst, it erodes the powers of local government and the influence of local people, and the amendments are an attempt by the Lords to improve an unacceptable Bill. That aspect of the Bill lies at the heart of the problem—the weakness of the Bill and the weakness of the Government's approach to local democracy. The proposals that the Lords seek to amend transfer vital planning powers to the regions without providing the necessary democratic accountability. If the Government have their way, regions will exercise planning functions that are currently in the hands of counties, irrespective of whether any corresponding elected authority exists.
	In the course of our debates, many have suggested—frankly, I am among them—that it is extraordinary that the regions should exercise that additional power. I make no case from this Dispatch Box, either personally or on behalf of my party, for regional assemblies in any way, shape or form, but to transfer such powers to them without democratic legitimacy is undesirable, unpalatable and unacceptable. Yet that is what the Minister is prepared to endorse. With a bitter irony, he told us that his intention is to make the system more democratic. He said that local people should have a chance to make their representations at the most appropriate level; but, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), his constituents—of whom he is a doughty defender—will have to make a round trip of 160 miles to make their concerns known. That is hardly a move towards making the system more people-friendly, more accountable and more democratic.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: It is likely that the south-west regional assembly will sit in Exeter. The distance to Exeter from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson), which is in the northern part of the south-west region, is probably more than 200 miles, so somebody who wanted to make representations to that assembly would face a daily round trip of well over 400 miles. Does my hon. Friend have a view on that?

John Hayes: I try to travel as little as possible, because I have heard that it broadens the mind. Nevertheless, my constituents are in a similar position, because people in Lincolnshire will have to go to Nottingham. From south Lincolnshire, that represents a round trip of well over 100 miles—not quite as great as the distance that my hon. Friend describes, but on poor roads that are, I hasten to add, unimproved by this Labour Government.
	Moreover, the people of rural Lincolnshire are, culturally speaking, a world apart from Nottingham. This is not simply a question of distance, but of where people are governed from. In my view, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I know that it is shared by you and by most Members of this House—political power is best exercised as close to people as possible to enable them to have an influence on local affairs. People want to have faith in, and to keep an eye on, those who govern them; they cannot achieve that effectively over a great distance.
	So loathsome is this aspect of the Bill, and so appalling is its effect on people's proper entitlements and rightful expectations, that it has driven the Liberal Democrats into my arms. I try not to hold anything against Liberal Democrats, because I do not like to get that close, but it is fair to say that, in this place and in the Lords, the Liberal Democrats and the official Opposition have come together because we share a profound concern about these proposals. It is extraordinary that we face the prospect of powers being exercised by regions, some of which may have corresponding democratically elected chambers and some of which may not: inconsistency can be added to our charges against the Government. The Government are prepared to let matters proceed before they know what is going to happen in relation to regional assemblies. We may end up with no regional assemblies at all, yet these powers will still be vested at regional level and taken away from the local community.
	Is it any wonder that the weight of considered opinion outside this place supports the Lords so strongly? I would be interested to hear the Minister's observations about his friends and colleagues in local government who oppose the proposals as strongly as my friends. The Local Government Association states:
	"The government has been given a stark warning that in its hurry to streamline the planning system, it risks eroding democratic control over future developments . . . A key reform underlying the Planning Bill . . . is the removal of statutory planning powers from county councils."
	The Planning Officers Society, the Town and Country Planning Association, the Civic Trust, the county councils network and the Council for the Protection of Rural England all acknowledge that to be unacceptable, believe that it is unlikely to improve the planning process and have firmly argued the case to the Government. Yet all have been ignored.
	The argument is therefore about democratic legitimacy and local accountability but also good planning, because bad planning decisions will result from their being made outside the compass of local people and the orbit where local opinions and sensitivities can be made known. We are also considering the status of counties and planning officers. I agree with the comments of Liberal Democrat peers in the House of Lords. Baroness Hamwee has already been mentioned in our discussions today. She said that the measure would mean that
	"county council resources and expertise will slowly wither away and . . . political commitment will decline as a core function"
	and become,
	"at best, an ancillary activity in future years."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 January 2004; Vol. 656, c. 921.]
	In joining together to table the amendments that we are debating, Lords of all parties and none—Cross Benchers were also involved in the move—recognised that there would be
	"massive haemorrhaging of experienced planning staff from county councils".
	An
	"emasculated county council planning function"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 January 2004; Vol. 656, c. 924.]
	would therefore kick in and damage not only local accountability but local professionalism.

Sydney Chapman: My hon. Friend quoted the Liberal peer, Lady Hamwee, who tabled amendment No. 1 in the other place. It is worth putting it on record that, for eight years, she was chairman of the London planning advisory committee, which was an unelected quango. Her occupation of that position means that we should take notice of her remarks.

John Hayes: As I said, I do not praise Liberal Democrats lightly. No wise or measured man does. However, on this occasion, they have got it right. Our objection to the measure is not born of any support for regional assemblies but of the Bill's leading to an indefensible position, unless the Government, at the eleventh hour, accept the Lords amendments. The unamended measure would mean that power rested with officers and would be removed from local communities. It may lead to the crazy result that some parts of the country, which have regional assemblies, have a route to influencing power through elected representatives whereas other parts have no such opportunity. That is ludicrous. The Minister knows that. He made the case with charm but unconvincingly. His heart was not in it because he knew that he was arguing a pretty weak case.
	The Lords also properly recognised that the Bill greatly increases the power of the Secretary of State.

David Wright: If the Bill did not proceed, the existing regional planning structure remained in place and a regional assembly was accepted, does the hon. Gentleman believe that regional planning powers should pass to that elected assembly?

John Hayes: I hope, and will work to ensure, that regional assemblies are not elected. I look forward to the day when we can dustbin the whole regional agenda and a Conservative Government will reinforce their commitment to local democracy through supporting county councils and district councils. I look forward to the day when we can say good-bye once and for all to regionalism. So I do not want to take the fanciful road, down which the hon. Gentleman seeks to lead me, of looking at a future that I do not believe will come to pass.

David Wright: rose—

John Hayes: I shall give way again, because as the hon. Gentleman knows, in the list of my many qualities, generosity is near the top.

David Wright: I thank the hon. Gentleman, who is well known in the House for his generosity. Does he think that the regional planning system should be democratised at all?

John Hayes: There is nothing wrong with fishing for compliments, particularly when we fish successfully and get them. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman agrees with my assessment of my strength of character.
	Of course the system should be democratised; of course there is a problem with a system that I have described as esoteric, cumbersome and bureaucratic, and in which people do not feel that they have sufficient influence over planning decisions. I want the planning system to be reformed, and the Government have the opportunity to do just that. So, yes, there should be democratisation of the planning system and greater public involvement. There should be many of the provisions to which the Minister claims to aspire, but none of them is contained in the Bill. Nothing in the Government's proposals will make the system more democratic. Indeed, if the hon. Member for Telford (David Wright) were to follow his principles and have the courage of his convictions, he would vote with us and with the House of Lords, which has—not for the first time—stood up for the people against a Government who have lost touch with the people they govern.

John Redwood: I should like to draw to the attention of my hon. Friend the most likely outcome, which is that there will be no elected regional assemblies because he and I and our friends will be successful in persuading people that they would represent an unnecessary bureaucratic intrusion in their lives. Does he therefore agree that the House can tonight either vote for the Lords amendments, which would mean that we should not have these nasty regional planning bodies and their extra powers, or vote with the Government to establish the bodies, over which there would be no democratic rights or controls of any kind?

John Hayes: My right hon. Friend is as incisive as ever. He is right to suggest that we are not being offered the chance to vote tonight for regional powers or regional elections; we are instead being encouraged by the Minister to vote against Lords amendments that would temper the Bill and to vote for a transfer of power or, at the very least—if the Minister will not accept the argument that these measures represent a transfer of power—the maintenance of power at regional level with no guarantee of matching accountability through elected structures.
	The Bill represents a challenge to proper local democracy. The hon. Member for Telford claims to be an advocate of good local democracy and, given his ability to judge character, he probably is such an advocate. I think that he is on the cusp of coming with us tonight and voting with those on the Opposition side of the House who really do support good, strong, healthy local democracy, and with those fellow travellers, the Liberal Democrats, who are going to vote with us. I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) in his place, and I look forward to his speech, which I hope will be supportive of the arguments that have already been made.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will my hon. Friend give way?

John Hayes: I really should move on, but I would be delighted to give way.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting a cogent and amusing case. Does he agree that the Government's case for this proposal being more democratic has been completely blown out of the water by the Minister's statement today, and that of his predecessor, that the regional spatial strategy belongs to the Secretary of State? If it belongs to the Secretary of State, how can it possibly be democratic?

John Hayes: Like a good prompter, my hon. Friend brings me to my next point. He is right; this is not simply about a lack of democratic legitimacy. It is not even just about the resulting bad planning decisions that are likely to emerge. The Lords have also properly recognised that the Bill greatly increases the power of the Secretary of State. They oppose that, as do we. It was recognised by my noble Friend, Lord Hanningfield, that the Government are seeking not only to suck power up from localities to regions, but to allow it, in his memorable phrase, to "leak" back to the Secretary of State.
	When the Minister, to whose words I listen carefully, speaks of decisions being made at the "appropriate level" he does not mean the low level, as he described it, of communities; what he really means is his level—or perhaps not even his level, but a level above: a level to which he aspires, a level that he may expect one day to occupy so that he can exercise such powers. We say that not just the transfer of powers to the regions, but the further transfer of powers to the Secretary of State is unacceptable.
	As I said at the outset, the Minister has made a charming case—he is always generous, and his delivery is always silky—but a wholly unconvincing one. The Government's position is as unconvincing as it is inconsistent. If this is new Labour democracy, I say: bring back old Labour. If this is new Labour democracy, let us bring back Bevan and Benn. This will mean local councillors with little power and local people with less. Communities will be emasculated, and planning professionals either overridden or ignored.
	Better still, let us bring on a Conservative team—convinced about local democracy, committed to serving local communities and determined to deliver politics and planning on a human scale. My colleagues will support the Lords tonight, because the Lords speak for the people. The Government speak against the interests of the people. I look forward to seeing the whole House support us and our noble Friends.

Matthew Green: The Bill started off as a terrible muddle. When the Minister took over he cleared away a few of the muddles, and the Bill left its second Commons Committee stage much improved. The Lords have improved it further, but there is some way to go before it will be workable. If we cover that ground we shall have a Bill that will speed up the planning system, make it more accountable and democratic and better reflect people's needs. The Lords have made some excellent changes; if the Minister accepts them, he will find that he has a Bill that he can be proud of for the next decade—for I suspect that it will be a decade before the House gets round to amending the planning legislation again.
	Lords amendment No. 1 attempts to let the Government live up to their own spin. "New localism" is a phrase that has been bandied around the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister for the past year or so. If this part of the Bill is new localism in practice, the Government have not quite got it. I understand the term to mean people making decisions at the lowest possible level and being accountable at the lowest possible level, not decisions being made at the centre on a one-size-fits-all basis.
	Unlike the Conservatives, I am a believer in regional government. We are arriving at the same point from two entirely different directions, but I am a firm believer in regional government because it can bring power closer to the people by taking it away from Westminster, not by taking it up from councils. I would be much more reassured by the route that the Government have taken if they accepted the sunrise clause, which says "Yes, transfer the powers, but do so when there is an elected regional assembly." If they did that, I would not have an argument with them—well, I might have a little argument with them over which powers should be where, but in general I have no problem with a regional tier of planning provided that it is democratically accountable and elected, which next year it will not be in most regions. I hope that we win the three northern regions: I shall certainly campaign for that, and I believe that they will be won. However, that will not involve the southern and midlands regions, which will have unelected regional planning bodies rather than elected ones.
	The Government admit that those unelected planning bodies will not even be completely indirectly elected. Their draft regulations say that funding for those bodies will be dependent on at least 30 per cent. of the membership with voting rights being other than from local authorities. The Government want to maximise the element of the regional planning bodies that is not elected—not even indirectly elected. It would be slightly more comforting if they said that 100 per cent. of those bodies were to be indirectly elected, but even that would not go far enough, as was alluded to by my noble Friend Baroness Hamwee in the other place. She served for eight years on, and chaired, the London planning advisory committee, a completely indirectly elected regional planning body, and she set out a good case for why such bodies do not work particularly well in the interests of people in the area.
	I urge the Government not to resist Lords amendment No. 1, because it seeks to ensure that there is no democratic deficit, and that when the powers are transferred—we can argue the detail of which powers should be at which level—there is democratic legitimacy. Surely the Minister wants to be remembered for having stood up for democratic legitimacy in the Bill.
	Lords amendment No. 2 was a Conservative amendment, with a great deal of merit, which the Liberal Democrat peers supported. It would change the emphasis in the Bill in respect of what the regional planning bodies could do with national planning guidance. At the moment, clause 1 says that the RSS, the regional spatial strategy,
	"must set out the Secretary of State's policies (however expressed) in relation to the development and use of land within the region."
	It will have no choice about that, but must set those policies out. The amendment, moved in the Lords by Lord Hanningfield, would change that "must set out" to "shall have regard to". That is about democracy, and about trusting an elected regional assembly to take the best decisions for its area, in the context of guidance from the Government. To say that the body must have regard to those policies is a much better way of doing that than to say that it "must set out" those policies.
	I am not going to go down the route of saying that we must take all planning powers down to the lowest possible level and decide on housing numbers at street level, because we would not then build the houses that we need. It is easy rhetoric—I say this with all seriousness to the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes)—to say that we should take all decisions down to the lowest possible level. The Conservatives did not do that when in government, and I suspect that if they were ever in government—unfortunately—again, they would still not do so. That is because some things have to be driven from national level, and some from regional level.
	It would be unrealistic to leave district councils to set out housing numbers. Virtually no houses would be built, because people do not want houses built in their area. If we walk down the average street, we will find that people say, "Oh yes, we need affordable houses for people. It is a great shame that young families cannot afford to buy houses these days". However, if we respond, "What about the field behind you—why don't we put some affordable housing there?" they say, "No, no, we can't possibly put any there, it's beautiful countryside." There is always tension in the planning system, and it is foolish to pretend that there is not.

John Hayes: I do not want to encourage the hon. Gentleman to go down a tributary, rather than sticking to the main thrust of the debate, but I am not sure that what he says is absolutely true. The truth of the matter is that people are worried about the scale and character of development. Part of the resistance to development of the kind that the hon. Gentleman describes has come about because historically—at least in recent history—the scale and nature of development have not always been desirable. That is probably a fairer reflection of local opinion than that which he suggests.

Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman would do well to talk to local groups in, say, the south-east about where they would like to see houses built. Very few people want any houses anywhere near them; they want them somewhere else. That is part of the nature of local planning. I am not suggesting that everything could be done at a local plan level, which would be misleading the electorate. However, I do not believe that the Government should be giving themselves the power to dictate from the centre; that is the very one-size-fits-all route that, in other areas of government, they seem to be rejecting.
	I support Lords amendment No. 2 because, to an extent, it would chop away the power of the Government while allowing them to set out guidance and recommendations. It would require the RSS to "have regard to" the Secretary of State's policy, and would remove the words "must set out". It would be a considerable step forward if the Government accepted the amendment. If the Bill remains as it is, there is a great danger that a Secretary of State could misuse his powers. I am not suggesting that this Secretary of State would dream of doing that, but if the powers remained, it is possible that we could have a centralised and imposed planning system.

Andrew Selous: Is not the hon. Gentleman belittling his constituents and those of other hon. Members somewhat? My constituents are very concerned about the supply of affordable housing locally and they will reflect that pressure in terms of the councillors they elect. Surely it is a question of providing local housing for local people across all the areas about which we are talking. Does that not contradict what the hon. Gentleman is saying?

Matthew Green: I do not think it does. As the Minister knows, I have been arguing for an increase in our housing numbers because we have too few. The local authority and local people are arguing for greater housing numbers because we cannot build the affordable housing that we need in the area. Potential changes to planning policy statement 7 would make the situation even worse by removing exception sites, but that is not a subject for this debate.
	Even in my area, where there is strong demand for extra houses over and above our allocation—we want more; we complained about what the county and the regional system allocated to us—people will say that they do not want 20, 30 or 40 extra houses in a field near them. They will say that they want the houses somewhere else. That is a fact of life. None of us particularly wants extra houses built immediately around us.
	Sometimes the tensions locally can be too great. I am not trying to be flippant, but in areas under immense housing pressure—unlike south Shropshire—such as parts of the south-east, I suspect that the extra affordable houses that are needed would not come at the rate that is needed if it were left to local authorities to provide them.
	Lords amendments Nos. 4 and 5 are concurrent with amendment No. 1 and would be necessary only if amendment No. 1 were accepted; they would delete what would be unnecessary words.
	I hope that the Minister has thought about this matter, which is the biggest area of contention in the Bill. Debates are coming up on other issues, but it is this part of the Bill that has the potential to lead to ping-pong between the two Houses. I say to the Minister in all seriousness that he needs to look at this issue again. If he cannot accept our proposals, he needs at least to move some way towards our position, because not only politicians and local councillors but the public themselves think that the Bill involves an unacceptable transfer of powers from directly elected bodies to unelected ones. The public do not want to stomach that.
	I know that the Minister cannot say with confidence that there will be elected regional assemblies throughout the country within the next 12 months. So for many years to come, regional planning bodies appointed by Secretary of State will make decisions on behalf of large parts of the country, and at least 30 per cent. of those bodies will not consist of directly elected councillors. The public find that unacceptable, and that is why we shall continue to support the amendment successfully moved by Liberal Democrat peers.

Sydney Chapman: I rise to support the four Lords amendments before us, and I share the view of the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) that this issue is crucial. The Government claim that they are devolving power downwards, but part 1 of the Bill does the opposite by transferring power upwards. It enables the structural plans made at county level to be made at regional level.
	The Minister says that there are excessive delays in the current town and country planning system—a point to which I shall return briefly—but it is my fundamental belief that those delays are mainly caused not by its structure, but by its operation. Of course, there is a vast difference between a directly elected body and an indirectly elected one. No regional spatial strategy should be left to unelected—and perhaps unknown—people, who will take decisions that affect everybody in a given authority. That will sever the link between the elected and the overall structural plan for the future.
	We should all be worried about the fact that even today, many people feel disaffected and alienated from the planning system: they feel that they have no part to play in taking decisions. It pains me to say so, but I still get far too many letters from constituents who believe that there is corruption or fraud in the planning system. I am sure that there is not, although of course, there are bad apples in every basket, and perhaps it happens on one or two occasions. However, handing over powers to unelected regional bodies—that is what we are talking about—will in no way improve the public's recognition of the planning system as above board and fair.

John Hayes: My hon. Friend is a great expert on these matters and as ever, he is making a very valuable contribution to our deliberations, but has he considered the fact that many of the misapprehensions about the planning system arise because it is regarded as esoteric and outside the scope of many who come into contact with it? If it also becomes distant, which is precisely the Bill's effect, that problem will be exacerbated, not eased.

Sydney Chapman: My hon. Friend puts it perfectly, and I envy him his eloquence in forcing home the point that I am trying to make.
	If the Bill goes through, it will scale down the importance of local plans, which I think are a vital part of our planning system. They will not be replaced, but they will lose their influence. If this part of the Bill is enacted, local plans will have to have regard to the regional spatial strategy, but the Bill also says that the RSS must set out the Government's policy. It is as simple as that—there is a direct link to the views of the Secretary of State.
	Unlike the hon. Member for Ludlow, I am against regional assemblies per se. They will only bring about yet another tier of government, and we have quite enough tiers. Ministers may say that we are the odd ones out in Europe and that most other countries have directly elected regional bodies, but we are a densely populated island, and it is not as if there were 3,000 miles between Berwick and Cornwall. We do not need regional authorities. My seat is in the Greater London area, and it is true that I have a regional authority, but I regret that I do, because I do not think that it is needed.
	Unless we radically changed the whole local authority structure for our capital city, a regional authority for London would probably have to extend as far as Brighton to the south, Bath or Bristol to the west, Northampton or wherever to the north, and Southend to the east. What cannot or should not properly be decided by counties in the south-east or by London boroughs should in fact be decided by the Government, because of the huge conglomeration that is the metropolis of the greatest city in the world.
	If regional bodies come about, they will be weak; they will have little to do; they will be relatively expensive—anybody who doubts that should be aware that the first four years of the Mayor of London and the Greater London Assembly have meant an increase in Londoners' precept of 96 per cent.; and they will empire-build, trying to take further powers from the counties and district councils.
	Of course, planning applications are still dealt with by district councils, or in London by the 32 boroughs, but any significant application is referred up and is therefore not determined at the local level of administration. The Minister in the Lords said that county boundaries do not work as the basis for effective strategic planning. If they do not, regional boundaries will not do so either. I do not believe that a case can be made for taking planning powers from the counties, which I believe were the one angle of local government that people could really identify with until a Conservative Government, I regret to say, introduced new counties that bore no relation to the historical background of the people of our country.
	My hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) has dealt with the Minister's rather strange point—I have a great regard for the Minister, but I agree with my hon. Friend that he has been speaking valiantly on a very bad case—in saying that these structure plans are just as likely to be up to date as any regional plan. In any case, not all structure plans are out of date. They are, by their very nature, brought up to date and revised.
	The prestigious Town and Country Planning Association supports the Lords amendments. I do not believe that the Government's proposals, particularly in part 1 of the Bill, are creating a simpler, fairer or faster system. It will not be simpler because there will be an additional layer of government; it will not be fairer because power is being transferred upwards; and it will certainly not be faster because the extra layer will bring about even greater conflict between the county or district level and the new regional level.

John Redwood: I support the Lords amendments and want to speak out against more bureaucratic control of the planning system at the regional level.
	I was intrigued by the Minister's failure to respond to my earlier point. He tried to change the subject by saying that I had once supported a Government who had also allowed a Secretary of State to provide some guidance and to interfere in planning through unelected regional bodies and our elected councils. That is quite right, but the Minister should also know that I have always been against that system and have fought many battles against it on behalf of my constituents. I am sad that the Minister does not seem inclined to take advantage of the reformed legislation passing through the House to introduce more democracy into our planning system.
	In common with my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman), I believe that there are already too many tiers of government. Like him, I would like to shed a tier or two of this country's government and get by with rather less of it. The most obvious area to remove is that of artificial regional government—regions that mean little or nothing to most of the people dragooned into them, and which are too extensive geographically. My hon. Friends have pointed out the long distances that people would have to travel to make representations in person. Regions also create tensions between the great cities and counties lumped together within them, as they jostle for position and try to have their interests properly represented.

David Wright: The right hon. Gentleman's analysis intrigues me. Does he believe that the whole regional planning guidance system should be scrapped and therefore that counties should interact directly with the Secretary of State, with no role for regional spatial analysis at all?

John Redwood: The hon. Gentleman is quite right that I see no need for regional planning tiers in England. I believe that it would be much better if counties or unitary authorities and boroughs put forward their proposals and engaged in dialogue with the Secretary of State on important issues of national significance. We may also need a system that provides incentives to counties and districts to allow certain quantities of development. Such incentives could be built in to provide some balance in the system, so that communities could see some of the advantages of accepting more development, while retaining the ultimate right or power to forgo those advantages and opt for less development than a Secretary of State might wish them to have. I do not accept the view that without draconian powers from the centre and from the regions, nothing would ever get built.
	We have already heard that the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) has been urging his local authority and the national system to build more. Several hon. Members have voiced similar opinions in previous debates on planning matters—they want more development in their constituencies, and that is often endorsed by their local elected authorities. That can be achieved through an electoral process and if a Secretary of State felt that the balance was wrong, he could, under my model, increase the incentives—perhaps financial incentives, allowing authorities to keep rather more of the tax revenue that would flow from greater development or allowing them to keep or develop the grants or extra money that comes through developer agreements—in return for the acceptance of further development. That would create a balance where both judgment and democratic rights were possible.

John Hayes: I support my right hon. Friend on that point. In my experience, local people rarely oppose the building of anything lovely or useful; they oppose building that is out of scale or out of character with their community. As he says, people do not oppose development per se, but they usually oppose unsuitable development.

John Redwood: That is my view. Having been a dweller both in London and in Berkshire, I know that if development proposals are made in my area in London, I often think that they are an enhancement, particularly if they will improve or replace old derelict buildings, or sites that have not been properly used or have fallen into disuse.
	I am often in favour of an intensification of use, because I accept that I am living in a city where there are lots of facilities. However, if I am considering a proposal for a village in my Berkshire constituency that has already faced more development than it would like as a result of regional guidance in the past, I am often sympathetic to the case made by the parish and the district unitary authority that a limit should be put on development—particularly in the light of the Government's failure to provide more trains, boats, planes and roads for the transport links, and their failure to expand the hospital and school systems sufficiently, or rapidly enough, to accommodate the planned development that regional guidance may be urging, or forcing, on reluctant local communities and local authorities. As my hon. Friend implied, we need to consider the circumstances on the ground in each city, town, district, parish and village. Surely that is an argument for more democracy in our planning process, and more of it being returned to local communities through their elected representatives, rather than for more powers being taken away to the centre.
	I am happy to speak out in praise of the nimbys. I remember being interviewed on that subject and explaining the kind of view that I am now setting forth about how the planning process could be reformed, with more local democracy, but also with reasonable amounts of development in the right places being encouraged and permitted. The interviewer thought that he had come to his clinching point when he turned to me and said, "But then, Mr. Redwood, you must be a nimby." I astounded him by replying, "But of course—and I suspect that you are too."
	Indeed, I suspect that most Members of the House of Commons, too, are secret nimbys. We all have different thresholds for our nimbyism, but I suspect that even most Labour Members, who are about to vote against people's right to defend their local communities from overdevelopment, would, if under pressure themselves, turn out to be nimbys when pushed in the wrong direction. I wonder how many Labour Members would like an abattoir next door to them. I wonder how many of them would say, "How wonderful!" if a fireworks factory were to be sited next to their house. I wonder how many of them would welcome one of the asylum camps that the Government have a passion for and wish to dot around Conservative areas. I suspect that we would find that there was quite a lot of nimbyism in Labour then—and if there were not, Labour Members would not be speaking up for their many constituents who often rightly wish to defend their rural views, their quiet residential streets, their local amenity, or the beauty of their local parks and green spaces.
	What we want from the Bill, and what the central Lords amendment is about, is a system that allows local communities to express their views on the scale, pace and nature of development, and then to have some chance of those being reflected in the underlying reality. I am not saying that people should have the absolute right to decide in each case. There are, of course, occasions when national issues and considerations have to be taken into account, and should properly be put before this House and be debated and reflected on through the right kind of procedure. There will also be occasions when matters need to be referred from the local community to the Secretary of State for adjudication. However, we do not want a new regional planning tyranny cemented in the concrete of this statute, unamended by their lordships' amendment.
	I like the wit and wisdom of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat alliance—an unusual alliance, and not one that I would normally encourage. The wit and wisdom lies in the fact that the Lib Dems will dream on, thinking that the amendment from their lordships' House would mean elected regional assemblies having an influence over the planning process, whereas we Conservatives know that it should be an easy task for us to see off the threat of regional assemblies—an unnecessary and expensive level of government that the Government seek to impose. The amendment would mean an end to the statutory regional interference that the Government have in mind under the Bill if it is not amended as their lordships suggest.
	I urge all those who wish their local communities to have a voice, all those who believe that a balance needs to be struck between the understandable wish to defend what we have and the need for growth and development and new ideas, and all those who do not believe in too much bureaucratic control and interference from a high level, to understand the importance of backing their lordships' amendment, and I urge them to join us in the Lobby.

Andrew Selous: I, too, support the amendment. I speak on behalf of an area in which the Government intend to build possibly 51,000 extra houses, in spite of the fact that there are 2,000 people on my council's housing waiting list and that plans are already in place to build 7,000 extra houses to meet local housing need. I point out to the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) that sensible, proper plans had already been put in place in my area by my district council to meet local housing need.
	My constituents are concerned that there will be a massive expansion of housing not to house local people or even to house people in local jobs but to bring people into the area who will probably commute some 35 or 40 miles to work somewhere else. That does not make sense for those new residents, and it does not make sense for my part of Bedfordshire. It is that lack of local democracy—the democratic deficit—that the amendments go some way to remedying and that my constituents have raised with me time and again. [Interruption.] In case the Minister or anyone else thinks that this is a personal ego trip from some green field-loving, nimby, Conservative, I should say that I have presented a petition to the House on this matter, particularly on the point of local democracy, which was signed by 17,000 constituents, which is only about 1,700 fewer than voted for me to become a Member of Parliament. When I speak on their behalf, I know that I do so with significant local support from all parties. Leading Labour and Liberal councillors back what I am saying, as do local representatives and community bodies with no political interest. We are not nimbys. We want to meet local demand, but the scale, nature and lack of sustainability of the Government's current plans cause us great concern.

David Wright: I represent a new town. There was consensus from the end of the second world war, under all Governments, that we should, through the planning system, build new housing in certain local areas to meet major regional and national demand. The new towns were one of those strategies. Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that it is perfectly reasonable in a coherent regional planning structure to require areas to consider large-scale housing development? That happens to be occurring in his area. In my area, there was originally large-scale opposition to the new town of Telford, but it has turned out to be an absolute success as far as most people are concerned in Shropshire and the wider west midlands.

Andrew Selous: The hon. Gentleman persuasively puts forward one way to solve the nation's current housing problems, which I accept are serious. He is absolutely right to say that we have to find radical solutions. There are alternatives, however. Even in London and the south-east there are around 150,000 empty properties. It is possible to develop existing communities organically so that there is some proper sense of community. If the hon. Gentleman thinks of developments on the edge of Glasgow, such as the Easterhouse estates, he will know that many people say that putting down vast numbers of houses on the outside of towns without proper community infrastructure has not worked as there is no proper sense of community. We need to think more seriously about that.

John Hayes: My hon. Friend will agree that there is a massive difference between what is being proposed for his part of the world and the new towns, which were devised and implemented as self-sustaining communities. What is being proposed in his part of Bedfordshire is an influx of people who will not be sustained locally and who will travel to work, increasing wage inflation and environmental pollution and doing untold damage. They will not be building the sort of communities that we all want to develop and thrive.

Andrew Selous: My hon. Friend is exactly right. That is at the heart of my constituents' objections to current housing proposals for south Bedfordshire, which the four amendments would go some way to addressing.
	I have put all these points to the Minister before, in an Adjournment debate, and I will continue to raise them on behalf of my constituents. It seems that I am the only elected person to whom my constituents can turn on these matters, because power has been taken out of my local planning authority's hands. I shall quote briefly from a letter and an article that the Chiltern Society recently sent me. This local society looks after environmental and planning issues in the area and has no party political stance. Its chairman, Mr. Robin Rowland, wrote to me with a magazine last month:
	"If you have time only to read just one article, can I ask you in the interests of democracy to read the article on page 14 by Helen Whitmore. This epitomises the current almost total disregard for local community views. It can not be right to empower Central Government and unelected Regional bodies this way. I am personally very much a non-political person as is the Chiltern Society, but it would be very wrong for us not to express our views strongly on this subject. I hope you will also feel it necessary to raise awareness on this matter."
	I certainly do feel the need to raise awareness of it.
	I should like also to quote from the magazine concerned, because it is relevant to the four amendments that we are discussing. In the excellent article, my constituent Helen Whitmore, who is planning field officer in south Bedfordshire for the Chiltern Society, wrote of her considerable concern that the examination in public process, which is all that we have been offered, is inadequate, and she comments:
	"At the Preliminary meeting to discuss the draft matters, a Government officer made it quite clear that it was not the job of the EiP to question Government Policy on growth in the South-East of England. We're stuck with it, like it or lump it.
	This is not democracy. All we in South Bedfordshire are to enjoy out of this thoroughly undemocratic process is the overwhelming of our communities by thousands upon thousands of people for the benefit of"
	people from outside our area,
	"but with little or no opportunity to even temper"
	the proposals put forward
	"never mind rein it back to realistic  . . . requirements . . . What appears to be happening to the planning system in this country with the stealth surrounding the destruction of true public involvement deeply frightens me. In relation to the devastation facing communities in South Bedfordshire, the process of an Examination-in-Public is inadequate, undemocratic and disempowering. It is a process which no longer allows individuals, local groups or for that matter voluntary organisations such as the Chiltern Society to put their case except in writing, unless specifically invited by the Examination Panel, nor to have convenient access to the debates. It is a disgrace."
	So writes a thoroughly respectable local organisation of excellent people whose members are people of all political parties and none, but who are concerned for the good of our area.

David Lidington: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is disgraceful that the examination in public at Northampton is considering major housing proposals for his constituency and mine without any rights for local amenity groups or parish councils to make their views known? Is he aware that, according the Aylesbury Vale district council, the Government office for the south-east proposes to bring forward from the second half of the communities plan yet more housing for the first half of the plan? The Government office will not even accept any responsibility for telling local people that that is what it plans to do.

Andrew Selous: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point with the lucidity that we have come to expect from him. He is right, and similar affronts to the feelings and needs of local people occur in every area we look at. We are all concerned about the low turnouts in local elections, but many of my constituents ask why they should bother to vote in local elections again if those who are elected have no power over some of the most significant issues that affect our area most deeply. The Government try to assume the mantle of new localism, but that is far from the truth.
	Concern has been expressed from different standpoints by my hon. Friends and myself today, but the theme of lack of concern for local areas is the same. More people come to see me about housing than about any other issue, and I am concerned that the housing needs of my constituents should be fully and adequately met. All that I ask is that other areas act as responsibly as my area is acting, and that housing supply is spread across London and the south-east, where it is needed, instead of being rammed into a few areas—as currently proposed.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I declare an interest as a fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. As such, I have practised within the planning system. I shall speak briefly so that the Minister has an opportunity to reply to some of the points that have been made ably by my hon. Friends.
	My principal concern is the motion to disagree to Lords amendment No. 1, which says that the provisions on the regional planning body and the regional spatial strategy
	"shall apply only if an elected assembly for the region has been established."
	That amendment would make a bad Bill marginally better. The Bill will be a testimonial to the Minister and I call it Hill's Bill. The problem is that its insidious effects will not be felt until long after he has ceased to hold his present position. Only then will the country reap the problems that the Bill will sow.
	The Bill has two fundamental disadvantages. First, it will do nothing to improve the democratic accountability of the planning system and, secondly, it will not speed up the planning system. In fact, it will do the reverse in both cases. I do not know how anyone, least of all the Minister, could believe that placing planning control under a regional system will improve matters. I have already demonstrated how my constituents will have to travel many hundreds of miles to make representations. Even if my constituents could discover the identities of the indirectly elected representatives, they would have great difficulty making representations about Gloucestershire matters to people living in Dorset or Cornwall. I do not know how my constituents would realistically be able to take part in a regional planning system.
	The regional planning system is not democratic. The Minister even said today that the regional spatial strategy would be the property of the Secretary of State. The Minister's predecessor, now the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, said that it would be the creature of the Secretary of State. If the RSS is the creature of the Secretary of State, how can it possibly be democratic for local people? The system would be hugely centralised, not democratic.
	The second issue is whether the Bill will speed up the planning system. Any developer will confirm that the reason we are building the lowest number of houses a year in peacetime since 1927 is the length of time that it takes to get planning permission for a residential development of any size. In most cases, it takes at least five years. We desperately need to speed up the planning system. The Government could speed up the existing system by ensuring that the structure plans and local plans were drawn up more frequently. That would also mean that people would feel more involved in the system. At present, when a controversial planning application is made, the people who would live next door to it often find out that it was contained in the structure plan or local plan that was drawn up four or five years ago and has been long forgotten, except by those experienced in the planning system. I have tabled a written question to the Deputy Prime Minister on that very point—it is No. 39 in the list of notice of questions in the Order Paper today. I have also asked about the strategic role of county councils, which are a vital part of the planning system and have been for 10 centuries. Shire counties have been in existence since the Norman conquest, but this vandalising Government propose to discard all the knowledge and experience of county councils.
	The Bill will not speed up the planning system. I have also tabled a question—No. 36, as listed on the Order Paper—about the number of planning officers. The lack of qualified planning officers is one reason for the slowness of the system. Does the Minister think that he will get more qualified planning officers by tearing up the county council system? If he does, he is living in a different country.
	I recognise that time is running out, so I shall conclude my remarks. This is a bad Bill and the effects of which will be felt for years to come, until a future Government rip it up and start again. It will mean a paradise for lawyers, with case after case to establish the law. The Bill will greatly slow down the planning system and alienate people from the democratic process, at local, district and county council level. We should not, therefore, be surprised when we see lower and lower turnouts at elections. It will all be the Government's fault.

Keith Hill: With permission, I shall reply to the debate. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) for his generosity in abbreviating his speech to allow me to respond briefly to the debate. I wish to scotch a couple of canards that have been heard today. No hon. Member in my experience has ever done more to try to shore up a tiny majority than the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), and he expressed outrage about the issue of distance in cases of examination in public, as did the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington). However, under the Conservatives, there was no examination in public whatever: the Government simply imposed policy without debate. If it is any reassurance to the hon. Gentlemen, I can tell them that in future there will be sub-regional sessions under the public examination arrangements if the panel deems them appropriate. That should serve to reduce the distance that people have to travel.
	We have heard a lot of hot air and some breathtaking claims, perhaps the most breathtaking of which was the new Tory doctrine that power should be as close to the people as possible, as proposed by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes). One thinks of the more than 50 Acts of Parliament in those 18 wasted years of Tory rule which in various ways removed power from local authorities and placed it in the hands of central Government. In the presence of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), we remember the Conservatives' bitter opposition to any form of devolution, including the creation of a Welsh Assembly and a Scottish Parliament. Indeed, they far preferred to administer those nations and regions from a distance of hundreds of miles.
	It is interesting that there was no response to the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (David Wright) to the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings on whether he would support regional spatial strategies even if they were produced by elected regional assemblies. The stuff that we have heard could be described as the Jenkins hypothesis of power to local people. It is hot air. The Conservative party remains, as ever, the party of state power and centralisation.
	The hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) made a sensible contribution on the need to have a balance between national, regional and local interests. He gave a franker recognition of the problems of nimbyism—the old localism, as we might call it—than we heard from the Conservatives, although the right hon. Member for Wokingham did give a positive espousal of nimbyism. The fact of the matter is, however, that in practice the hon. Member for Ludlow is supporting a denial of the need for a regional dimension in planning. The amendments would eliminate regional planning bodies altogether unless there is an elected regional assembly. That would turn the clock back to a situation prior to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, introduced by the Conservatives.
	We have heard a great deal from the official Opposition about the weakening of local plans, but under the existing system, introduced by the Conservative Government, the lower tier development plan must have regard to regional planning guidance. Furthermore, it was the Conservative Government who directed local planning authorities, in particular county councils, to implement the regional planning guidance housing figures.
	There has been much hot air about democracy, but we have cause to be anxious that that is a bluff, designed to destroy the regional dimension in planning altogether. The first group of amendments would ensure that there was no regional planning body unless there was an elected regional assembly, but even if there were a regional planning body because there was an elected regional assembly, the second group of amendments, which we have not had the opportunity to debate, would mean that it still fell to the county councils to define the contents of the regional spatial strategy through sub-regional plans. A na-ve observer might think that even with an elected regional assembly, there is not much point in having a regional spatial strategy. That is the bottom line in the Conservative party's representations.
	We heard much from the hon. Member for Ludlow on amendment No. 2—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings, Mr. Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].
	The House divided: Ayes 289, Noes 166.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendment disagreed to.
	madam deputy speaker then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Clause 1
	 — 
	Regional Spatial Strategy

Lords amendment No. 2 disagreed to.
	Lords amendment: No. 3.
	Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Keith Hill.]
	The House divided: Ayes 288, Noes 167.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendment disagreed to.

Clause 2
	 — 
	Regional Planning Bodies

Lords amendments Nos. 4 and 5 disagreed to.

Clause 22
	 — 
	Adoption Of Local Development Documents

Lords amendment: No. 21.

Keith Hill: I beg to move, That the House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 22 and 23 and the Government motions to disagree thereto.

Keith Hill: The Government have been clear from the outset that one of the key elements of our planning reforms is for the recommendations of the independent inspector, following an independent examination, to be the final stage in the preparation of a development plan document. The amendments intend to retain the status quo, which is unacceptable for the following reasons.
	Taken together, amendments Nos. 21, 22 and 23 would remove the important innovation of binding inspectors' reports on development plan documents at the local level. At the same time, amendment No. 21 would also muddle up the provisions for adopting local development documents that are not development plan documents, and which are known as supplementary planning documents. The amendment would result in local authorities having to take account of the inspectors' recommendations on a supplementary planning document even though there is no independent examination of those documents.
	Binding reports form a crucial foundation in the proposed local planning system, and a number of key features support that function. First, there is the concept of front loading. That means that the local planning authority will reach decisions on key matters early in the plan making process. The local planning authority will start by identifying and taking the community's views and interested parties' ideas on all the potential options, and then deciding what it thinks is best for its area.

Peter Bottomley: Will the Minister give one or two illustrative examples of where things went wrong under the existing process?

Keith Hill: In some cases the existing process has led to the late introduction of elements in local plans, characteristically the late introduction of new proposals for developers, and on some occasions the introduction of unpopular proposals for development put forward by local authorities. It is precisely to obviate such risks and what might be described as a form of abuse of the existing system that we are introducing our present proposals for the powerful front loading of the system for new and stronger elements of community involvement. It should be borne in mind throughout the process that the inspector is all the time responding to various representations and inputs that emerge at various stages of the local planning process. In many respects the proposed system offers far more safeguards to local people in terms of what is likely to appear in the plan than the existing system.

Peter Bottomley: There is the question of what happens while inspectors hear what people have to say and there is the question of what happens afterwards. My local authorities, both at district and county level, have asked what would happen under the Government's proposals—unless they accept the purpose of some of the Lords amendments—were the inspector to make a plain mistake. Leaving aside the fact that the Minister has not dealt with what would happen after an inspector's report, what would happen if the inspector made a mistake? How could it be put right?

Keith Hill: The hon. Gentleman raises an issue of concern that has also been taken up elsewhere and on which I think that I can reassure him. The local planning authority already sees the inspector's draft report and can point out factual errors. That situation exists now and we propose that it should continue under the present proposals. I hope that that serves to some degree to reassure the hon. Gentleman.
	I was saying that it is the role of the local planning authority to take soundings, to consult local communities and to hear the views of interested parties on all the potential options and then to decide what it thinks is best for its own area. The job of the local planning authority is to devise policies and proposals for the development plan document for its area, involving its community fully in the process. Representations made to the authority on its preferred options will be considered by it. I emphasise that no inspector is involved at this stage and it is from this consideration that the authority will prepare its development plan document to submit for independent examination.
	We believe that the local authority will be well placed to do this with the procedures that we are introducing to ensure early debate and decisions. There will be a strong disincentive for anyone to put off raising controversial proposals in the hope that they have a better chance of succeeding if sprung on people at a late stage, whether that is a developer or the authority wishing to avoid coming to a difficult or potentially unpopular decision without involving the community.
	Secondly, the investment by the community and others in making representations on a development plan document, and participating in the independent examination, will now always be worth while. No longer will the community and others face the entirely unjustifiable position where all their input is taken forward through the inspector's recommendations, but then ignored by the authority, which may decide to do something completely different. That would undermine our intention to give communities a greater say in plan making and to secure their buy-in.
	Finally, the inspector's job is to determine whether a development plan document satisfies the legal requirements on its preparation and whether it is sound. The inspector's starting point will be that the development plan document that the authority has submitted is sound unless evidence proves otherwise.
	Anyone seeking a substantive change to a development plan document will need to show that the document is unsound and that the change will render it sound. That is also a requirement of the inspector. I emphasise again that any changes that the inspector recommends will not simply reflect his or her views, rather than those of the local authority, but will be changes that are needed to achieve a sound plan that is tested against the criteria for soundness that it has to meet. If, as a result of the inspector's consideration of soundness, he or she believes that the development plan document should be changed significantly—for example, as a result of insufficient evidence—that could happen only if the examination is reconvened or if the development plan document is referred back to the local planning authority for further consideration.

Matthew Green: Is the Minister entirely confident that inspectors, who on the whole do a very good job, always manage to interpret planning guidance correctly? In some cases, the local authority's interpretation of Government and regional planning guidance has differed from that of the inspector, and I think that the Minister would have been inclined to agree with the local authority. Is he confident that the inspector is always right?

Keith Hill: First, I have a great deal of confidence in the inspectorate. My observational experience, both as a citizen and as a Minister, is that the quality of the work produced by the inspectorate is, by and large, very impressive.
	Secondly, the proposals, especially on the concept of soundness, are not being unleashed on inspectors without preparation. Indeed, I recently attended a conference of the inspectorate where a great deal of practical training on the provisions of the Bill was already taking place. I am reasonably confident that there will be a high level of preparation for and understanding of the contents and definitions of the Bill.
	Finally, if the inspector gets it wrong, the local authority has other recourses with which the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) is familiar. The process incorporates a large number of safeguards and fail-safes.
	If there is still insufficient evidence for the inspector to recommend a change that he or she thinks should be made to a development plan document, the inspector will not be able to recommend that change in his or her report. If that happens, the inspector will only be able to advise the authority of his or her view that it should revise its development plan document or prepare a fresh one to take the matter forward. Those principles will be set out clearly in the final version of planning policy statement 12.
	As we have said on many previous occasions, binding inspectors' reports are a key mechanism for speeding up the plan-making system, because the modifications stage, which usually takes six months or more, will no longer be needed. Speeding up the process is vital if our communities are to have the up-to-date plans that they and their areas need.
	I fear that the amendments are in direct contradiction to our policy on this issue, and we cannot agree to them.

Robert Syms: I start by declaring my interest, as recorded in the Register of Members' Interests, as a director of a family property company with interests in the building industry.
	I listened carefully to the Minister's remarks, but he has not yet convinced me that the Government are right on this issue. One of the disadvantages of coming late to a debate is that one has to go back through the papers to find out about the Government's intentions. I want to try to get the architecture right in terms of understanding where the binding inspectors' reports fit in. Initially, a national spatial plan strategy will send directions to the regional spatial strategies—although the Minister said earlier that that would differ according to whether there was an elected assembly or a non-elected regional planning body—and that will set the local development frameworks. Then, the local authority has to produce its local development scheme, to come into force by the end of 2004, which lists all the documents to be prepared and the timetable for doing so. The authority also has to produce a statement of community involvement so that the public feels confident that they can be involved in the whole process.
	That eventually leads to the preparation of local development documents, including maps and action plans for what is to happen in the locality. There is also the option of the supplementary planning documents that the Minister mentioned, which do not have to undergo independent examination. At that point, the local authority has to produce its local development plan documents, with some degree of latitude as to the degree of detail. Community involvement will be an important part of that. At the end of the process, an inspector has to look at the local development documents.
	In essence, the Government want to introduce what Lord Rooker called
	"the important innovation of binding inspectors' reports on development plan documents."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 March 2004; Vol. 1940, c. 454.]
	The philosophy of the measure is much more top down than bottom up. An inspector will have the ability substantially to alter documents produced by the local authority that have gone through the local consultation process.
	There is widespread concern about how the system will operate. The Local Government Association fears that the proposals will
	"undermine local democracy, accountability, and the freedoms and flexibilities the government says it wants to grant local government in order to make localism a reality."
	It says:
	"There will be no opportunity for local authorities to correct errors of fact and misinterpretation which creep into many an inspector's report but which can be ironed out in the current system without fuss.
	There could be significant implications for parts of the plan not actually formally under public examination and on which the local authority will not have had chance to make representations.
	Local authorities are also likely to find themselves in a difficult position if they unable to challenge the Inspector's decisions, which may prove to be contrary to national and regional planning guidance or not adequately reflect local circumstances.
	There will be wider implications. The inspector's report will have a direct impact on Community strategies and other local strategies outside planning and the local authority will have no recourse to challenge the inspector's recommendations if they are contrary to the objectives of the community strategy."
	It gives an example of how things could go wrong:
	"In Birmingham, the Local Planning Inspector recently recommended that the City Council's Unitary Development Plan should remove key employment sites from the plan even though this was contrary to both current and emerging regional planning guidance for the area. Such an outcome would have significant implications for local planning authorities under the new system as there do not appear to be safeguards to prevent this happening and local authorities would not be in a position to challenge the Inspector's decision. The processes for rectifying issues of this kind are likely to be messy and convoluted."
	As the Minister said, the only option that will be left open to local authorities is judicial review, but many authorities—certainly in Poole—would have to consider the costs involved in that before trying to challenge what an inspector wants to do.
	Although I agree with the hon. Member for Ludlow that planning inspectors are generally competent and good at what they do, mistakes are made, and many reports contain factual errors. By making that element of the process binding, the Government are giving it an importance within the planning architecture that could significantly change what local development documents are intended to be. The Government should consider the Lords amendments as a great help because leaving the final say to local authorities would be consistent with what all parties want—more power for local authorities. The amendments would be the most effective method of ensuring that the right decisions were made at the end of the process. A local authority could consider an inspector's decision and amend its plan accordingly if it believed that the inspector had a good point.
	It has been said in the debate that an inspector could not simply implement his views but would have to examine the whole process. He would have to consider the public consultation, ascertain what issues had been raised and make amendments on that basis. However, as we all know, issues are raised in local plans and consultations that have strong proponents for and against them. Controversial decisions could ensue through the Government's making that part of the process binding. In another place, Lord Rooker clearly stated that the Government's intention was to speed up the planning process and that the proposal was part of that. Yet we are considering the last part of the process and it is unlikely that the provision would speed it up. If the consequence of speeding up the process is diminishing local democracy and perhaps making it more difficult to rectify mistakes—we all know that mistakes are made—the Government may come to regret it.
	We are considering complex planning architecture, with all sorts of plans and supplements popping out. I am beginning to wonder whether we shall end up with a speedier process. However, the top-down philosophy that the Government appear to be implementing in many of their planning proposals, whereby an inspector can insist on changes and judicial review is the only avenue available to a local authority that has been through all the processes and taken account of all public anxieties and representations, is unacceptable. The Government should listen carefully to what the Lords and Members of the House of Commons are saying about an issue that is important to many of our constituents.

Matthew Green: We are discussing one of the main contentious subjects in the Bill. The hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) did hon. Members a great favour when he asked the Minister to give examples of problems with the current system. The Minister had some difficulty in dealing with that. Under the new scheme, a local development plan will become a series of local development documents. The Minister knows that I support the new scheme. Under the current system, local authorities do not often reverse the inspector's decisions, for the wrong reasons.
	However, let me give an example, provided by the Local Government Association, of a local authority using its power to reverse an inspector's decision about a local plan. The local authority is Birmingham, which was Labour led when the decision was reversed. Labour councillors voted for a plan, which the inspector changed. I understand that the planning inspector recently recommended that Birmingham city council's unitary development plan should remove key employment sites from the plan, even though that was contrary to current and emerging regional planning guidance for the area. Such an outcome would have significant implications for the new system.
	Ninety-nine per cent. of the time, inspectors get it right but nobody is perfect and they can make mistakes. Correcting them through judicial review is expensive. Perhaps Birmingham might be able to spread the costs because it is the biggest local authority in the country, and I believe has a budget of more than £1 billion. However, most small shire districts would not contemplate resorting to judicial review against the Secretary of State—the inspector acts in the Secretary of State's name. They could not consider that route for financial reasons.

Peter Bottomley: Like other hon. Members, the hon. Gentleman will have noticed that, in another place, the Government ensured that four clauses were added so that Ministers could correct mistakes that they or planning inspectors made about planning decisions. It is odd that we are holding the current discussion on more major issues when the Government have given themselves gold-plated protection for minor slips.

Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. All we are requesting for local authorities is a little—only an inch—of the power that the Secretary of State likes to preserve for himself. Let us consider circumstances in which the new local development documents go through all the stages and an inspector makes a ruling that is clearly against the wishes of the local authority, the local people and possibly even the Minister in whose name the inspector acts. That could undermine local democracy and accountability at the level at which it should be built into the planning system.
	I want a planning system that works. The move to a series of local development documents rather than a local plan will reduce conflict because under the current system, the whole plan has to be called in if the inspector wants to make an objection. I suspect that many of the documents in isolation will not cause the same controversy as a whole plan. There should therefore be fewer public inquiries, and I welcome that.
	However, I am worried that the inspectors might not get it right, and I shall provide an example. The Minister cannot come back at me and will simply go all quasi-judicial. I know he will do that, so he does not need to make the excuse later. Both my local authorities are currently preparing their local plans. They are at different stages and, although they have taken a little longer than the five years that they are supposed to take, they are both preparing them.
	South Shropshire's plan is currently at inspector's report stage. As hon. Members who have followed the progress of the Bill know, South Shropshire has an innovative affordable housing policy. The Minister knows about it because I have sent him a copy and he expressed some interest in it. It is probably one of the most radical policies in the country. It suggests that, on sites of two or more houses, 50 per cent. should be affordable. The policy is included in the local plan. The local authority tried to introduce the policy previously but, on appeal, inspectors ruled in favour of builders who did not want the affordable houses. The local authority is therefore trying to introduce the policy through the local plan and the inspector is challenging the council, although he may ultimately accept it. I believe that the reason for the challenge is that the policy goes against Government guidance, which stipulates 30 per cent. affordable housing. However, as the Minister knows, 30 per cent. is only a minimum. The council is therefore right to propose 50 per cent.
	South Shropshire has approximately 350 planning permissions left until 2011 but its local needs housing survey shows that it requires 1,400 affordable homes. The problem is that almost every home that is built needs to be affordable. The local authority cannot achieve that so it is aiming for 50 per cent. I hope that the inspector will not overrule that, but he could. Under the current system, the local authority has the final say, but if the policy was contained in a new development plan document on affordable housing in South Shropshire and an inspector overruled it, South Shropshire would have more executive homes and fewer affordable homes because an inspector had determined that it was not quite in line with what pertained nationally, although I believe that it is.
	I know that the Minister cannot comment on that—he cannot even raise an eyebrow in case someone challenges under judicial review—but it is an example of what could go wrong with the new system and the way in which the Minister foresees it working. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The Minister has not given any explanation of how the system is broke, so I am not sure why he is so desperate to fix it.
	The Local Government Association strongly supports the Lords amendments on this issue, as does my own local authority. The chief executive of South Shropshire district council e-mailed me only a few days ago to stiffen my resolve, if it needed stiffening, on this point. Inspectors have to come in from outside; they cannot be from the locality that they are to inspect, for good reasons. There is great concern out there, however, that an inspector coming in from outside might not fully understand the nuances of local need and local development in the way that locally elected people and local officers working there on a day-to-day basis should do. In the case of South Shropshire, these concerns are coming from a council that is very pro-development.
	The point of having an inspector's report is to stop a council doing anything that represents a radical departure from the plan, such as not building any affordable housing. I would welcome an inspector going in to report on such a situation. Under the current system, if a council overturns an inspector's report, that report can be taken into account in an appeal by a developer. It would be a material consideration. That is one of the most effective checks. We do not need binding reports. If a council is trying to prevent development when an inspector believes that it should take place, and the developer goes to appeal having lost a planning application, the developer should win on the basis of that material consideration, provided that all other things were equal. The current system therefore has good checks and balances built into it, but the proposed system shifts everything too much in one direction. I hope that the Minister will be prepared to give councils just a little of the power that accrues to him under the Bill.

Andrew Selous: I, too, support the Lords amendment—principally because I have been contacted by representatives of Bedfordshire county council, who wrote to me a few days ago and strongly urged me to back it, just as the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) has been urged to back it by his local authority. The issues involved are similar to those that we debated earlier this evening when discussing other amendments, but I shall obviously not revisit those issues now. In essence, however, they relate to the undermining of local democracy and accountability, and to the fact that there will be no opportunity for local authorities to correct any errors of fact or misinterpretation that might creep into inspectors' reports.
	It is also clear, as my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) explained earlier, that circumstances could arise in which an inspector's recommendations are contrary to the existing regional and national planning guidance. Under the proposals, local authorities do not appear to have any recourse to challenge an inspector's recommendation, other than by instigating a judicial review. It is certainly the view of Bedfordshire county council and the Local Government Association that that is not a course that we should force local authorities to go down, as it would be likely to be a lengthy, expensive and difficult process.
	Of course, we understand the proper function that inspectors have within the planning process, but that must be balanced vis-à-vis the powers and responsibilities of local planning authorities. In my constituency, considerable disquiet was expressed at a recent Government inspector's decision to allow travellers to remain permanently on local green belt land. That decision involved a completely unauthorised development, about which the local authority and the local people felt very strongly. Indeed, my constituents expressed considerable resentment at, as they saw it, a Government inspector coming in from the other side of the country. They did not believe that the inspector was in tune with the wishes and views of the local people or had a proper understanding of the issues. That resulted in considerable resentment building up.
	My fear is that we shall see more resentment building up. People will feel that the whole planning process is becoming more remote and more unchallengeable. If a local authority were able to challenge an inspector's decision, there would at least be some contact between the electorate and someone whom they could get hold of locally and who was accountable to them by virtue of wanting to be re-elected every few years. That link will be lost under the new measures, and that will have detrimental consequences for local democracy and for any sense of local involvement in planning issues.

Peter Bottomley: It is now time for the Minister's test. Will he please intervene and let me know which clause of the Bill is affected by the Lords amendments that we are now discussing?

Keith Hill: We are dealing with clause 22 of the Bill.

Peter Bottomley: Regarding clause 22, does the Minister know when the Secretary of State last intervened to overrule a planner's view on a development plan? I could give him a whole series of cases in which the Secretary of State has overruled his inspector, when the inspector has overruled a local authority. I do not want to sound as though I am against inspectors, but the Secretary of State's considered view in such cases was that the local authority was right and that the inspector should be overruled. If that happens, it is either because the Secretary of State has received representations, perhaps from the local authority or the community—which we hear so much about—or from some other source.
	I am not sure how big a difference there is between the Local Government Association and the Minister's advisers. This is not the time to go back into the history of where the ghastly expression "spatial planning" came from—

Keith Hill: Europe.

Peter Bottomley: It might have come from Europe, but I am not sure why we needed to adopt it. We could always have translated it, could we not? I am all in favour of being a European as well as being British, but if I were to go out into the high street of Worthing and ask people what they thought of the Government's policy on spatial planning, they would say, "Say that again. What's it all about?" The Government have failed to explain why they are putting forward their national strategy in this way, and why they have not managed to convince the very sensible people in the Local Government Association, which includes the local councils in the Worthing, West constituency.

Sydney Chapman: I think that my hon. Friend will find that the term "spatial development" was first introduced in the Greater London Authority Act 1999. I made exactly the same point at that time as my hon. Friend is making now. It is a new-fangled concept with which I find it difficult to come to terms. I notice that since it was introduced in that Act, there has been less and less space in London as buildings get taller and taller.

Peter Bottomley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention.
	I believe that, in a number of respects, the Government's intentions are good. In the seven years that I have represented my present constituency, however, I have also learned that the Deputy Prime Minister, in trying to deal with the traffic problems along the A27 corridor through West Sussex, has set up a system that was designed not to produce a result. When I now hear from the planning Minister and the Government that they want a system that will not allow for delay but will identify delay and overcome it, I wonder what that will mean for the people who will lose their lives, be injured or have their environment wrecked by an uncontrolled traffic flow on unsuitable roads through urban areas.
	The Minister does not need to give me an answer this evening because that is a local point, but I hope that he will ensure that, if the Government are so concerned about this spatial planning, it should include transport planning as well. That would be helpful, because many development issues are affected in that way. I could give the Minister an example of a case in which the Secretary of State overruled an inspector in my neighbouring constituency of East Worthing and Shoreham two or three years ago.
	West Sussex county council has been well led and well run at officer and member level, and I want it to be satisfied with planning controls that will help it to achieve what it is required to achieve, and which will stop it being dissatisfied because the Government are not listening to the reasonable voices in the House of Lords, and which are being supported by the Local Government Association. That is why I wrote to the Minister a couple of weeks ago asking him to explain why the Lords amendments were unacceptable, and either to accept them or to present alternatives that would bring about consensus on what the Local Government Association, the Lords and the West Sussex councils wanted—together with a reasonable opportunity for the Government to achieve the aim of their wholesale changes.
	At present, I think that the House would judge it fair to say, with a half-smile, that the Minister has not even tried to justify the Government's intentions, other than by saying that the Government do not want anything to happen after the inspector has made a recommendation because they do not want that. We have heard no argument that stands up to reason. As the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) kindly pointed out, we have heard no response to my request for real examples of things going wrong. I hope that if the Government's majority—which, I note, has not been reflected in this evening's Back-Bench speeches—succeeds in overturning the amendment, their lordships will go on requiring Ministers in the other place to produce arguments that make some kind of sense. At present, this House is being asked to approve something that does not make sense.

Keith Hill: I hope to deal with most of what has been said, although I shall not detain the House for long.
	The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) spoke of the complexity of the architecture. I think that we have already dealt with that. Although—if I may use a colloquialism—I know where the hon. Gentleman is coming from, those of us who have thrashed out these issues in Committee are pretty clear about the structures. Any new system takes some understanding, but I am confident that this system is understood. The fact that a number of local authorities are already drawing up their local development frameworks suggests that it is clearly understood out there.
	I strongly rebut what I believe to have been the assertion of the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) that this was a top-down system. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are introducing much more powerful elements of community involvement to a planning system that is already characterised—perhaps more than most areas of local and national government activity—by a greater degree of public participation than that system has yet experienced. That is a direct contradiction of the notion of top-down decision-making.
	Front-loading is essential to the concept of binding inspectors' reports. As I shall demonstrate, all key material issues will emerge earlier in the process, and there are innumerable safeguards to prevent the introduction of unpredictable measures. All interested parties will have an opportunity to participate at the outset.

Matthew Green: The Minister said that I had described this as a top-down system. If he reads Hansard, he will find that I said nothing of the sort. In the examples I gave, inspectors were not just failing to go along with what the local authority wanted, but their actions were not in line with national and regional planning guidance, and thus not in line with the top. My point was that a check would be needed after an inspector's report. I agree with the Minister about front-loading, which I think will remove the need for numerous inspectors' reports and public inquiries. I agree with all the positives. However, I do not see the necessity to take away a council's ability to overturn a report.

Keith Hill: If the hon. Gentleman did not use the expression "top-down", I withdraw my allegation and apologise. However, he did say that the inspector would be acting in Ministers' names, which is absolutely not the case. The inspector will be entirely independent, which is why clause 19 provides for an independent examination.
	The hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) used a traffic analogy. I repeat that the inspector will be strictly limited in terms of the new matters that he may present. It is invidious to cite cases and Ministers must be awfully careful with planning issues, but it is well known that a weakness of the planning system—for it is bound to have some acknowledged weaknesses—is that it can lead to excessive delays. Frequent unreasonable delays at the modification stage are a byword, and the Bill seeks to deal with them.
	At this point I should scotch another canard. I seem to begin all my replies by scotching canards. The hon. Member for Poole began his description of what he called the architecture of the Bill by saying that we began with a national spatial strategy. There is no such thing, although we have the planning policy statements and the White Papers which inform the regional spatial strategies, which in turn inform the local development documents.
	Conservative Members have expressed anxiety about the powers which, they assert, will accrue to inspectors. They fear that an inspector might make changes to a development plan document that would not be considered at the examination. I repeat that the inspector will be able to recommend a substantive change in the document only if people have had an opportunity to make representations on it, or it has been considered at an examination and the representations, or debates, support the change.
	Generally, inspectors will not be able to introduce new proposals. Any new proposals must be tested against the criteria for soundness at the public examination stage. Inspectors will be able to recommend a substantive change in the plan and the policies only if it has been through due process. They can, however, reconvene the examination panel or return the matter to the local planning authority for consideration. As a result, it will be subject to the preparation of a new plan or the alteration of the shortly-to-be-adopted development plan document.
	The inspector's job will be to consider both the test of soundness and the representation. If he or she believes that the plan contains a substantial weakness that has not been subject to representations but on which he or she might need to make a recommendation, he or she must raise that at the examination and invite discussions.
	Safeguards will be available to local authorities in extremis. The hon. Member for Worthing, West mentioned factual errors. A fact check will be available to authorities. The local planning authority will see a draft of the report and will be able to point out factual errors, which will be set out in the final version of planning policy statement 12.
	Secondly, anyone can ask the Secretary of State to exercise his intervention powers to direct changes—that is in clause 21—or to call in the plan, under clause 23, where a development plan document is up for approval and under challenge. Challenge in the courts is possible under clause 109 on the grounds that the document is not within the appropriate power or that a procedural requirement has not been complied with. As we have said, in certain other circumstances judicial review might be appropriate.
	Finally, Members from both Opposition parties have alluded to the Birmingham case. Again, it will be understood that it is not appropriate for me to comment on specifics, but I put it to those hon. Gentlemen that they are assuming that the new arrangements will be exactly like the existing ones, except that the inspector's report will be the final stage. As I have sought to explain in extreme detail, the features of the new system mean that that will not be the case. It seems unlikely that examples such as Birmingham will recur.
	In the light of all those considerations, I invite the House to resist the Lords amendment.

Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment:—
	The House divided: Ayes 274, Noes 162.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendment disagreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 22 and 23 disagreed to.

Clause 37
	 — 
	Development Plan

Lords amendment: No. 26.

Keith Hill: I beg to move, That the House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 27 and the Government motion to disagree thereto.

Keith Hill: Amendment No. 26 would mean that the Mayor's spatial development strategy—the London plan—would not become part of the development plan until it had been through a revision. Amendment No. 27 makes a consequential amendment to the wording of clause 37.
	Making the plan that sets the strategic planning framework for the region a part of the development plan is an essential part of affirming its status and of reducing uncertainty and ambiguity. This is just as applicable to the London plan as it is to the regional spatial strategies in other regions. In both the regions and London, we believe that our starting point should be for the existing documents to become part of the development plan. We see no advantage in a delay while those plans are prepared from scratch or existing plans altered. The only exceptions to this approach are regional planning guidance 3, London; 3a, Strategic Views in London; 3b, River Thames; 9b, River Thames; and 9a, Thames Gateway. The RPGs that will not become regional spatial strategies are those that have been replaced in large part by the Mayor's London plan or cover areas already covered by another RPG and were not subject to an examination in public when they were prepared.
	I do not agree that, unlike the arrangements in our regions, the London plan should not become part of the development plan because at the early stages of its preparation people did not know that the legislation would be introduced. The Bill was introduced on 4   December 2002 and we wrote to the London panel in January 2003—before the examination in public on the draft plan—to draw its attention to the provisions. Our letter was copied to the Association of London Government to make London boroughs aware of the matter.
	In any event, the importance of a spatial development plan prepared by the Mayor was well known and I cannot accept the argument that all those who made representations, including all the London boroughs, did not make their best case when doing so.
	I do not accept the view that the current London plan contains too much detail to be a strategic development plan. Circular 1/2000, which sets out the arrangements for strategic planning in London, makes it clear that the London plan must deal only with matters of strategic importance. The panel was well aware of that. Where the panel report concluded that policies were insufficiently strategic, that has been taken account of in the final version of the plan. But there is no reason why the London plan should not contain strategic development control policies.
	It should not be forgotten that London has a history of quite detailed strategic guidance; for example, the regional planning guidance on strategic views in the capital and on the River Thames. This reflects the particularly close interdependencies of a city compared with a much larger region. The Mayor of London is charged with preparing eight statutory strategies that need to be consistent each with the other. This necessarily means that the London plan needs to contain a substantial number of policies. It does not mean—this is borne out by the examination in public—that they are not appropriate for a strategic development plan in London.
	By making the London plan part of the development plan we are increasing clarity and reducing ambiguity. We are not fundamentally altering the existing relationship—one of general conformity—between it and unitary development plans. The practical consequences of the change will be limited. Under the current arrangements, the London plan can still be a "material consideration" when a London borough considers a planning application. The weight given to the policies in the London plan may in some cases be significant. Making the London plan part of the development plan does not mean that boroughs will be suddenly faced with a different set of issues to consider when dealing with planning applications. The same basic principles still apply.
	I have already said that it is right that the London plan should contain strategic development control policies. Nevertheless, for the majority of planning applications, it is unlikely that the London plan as a strategic document will be an important consideration. I do not see the Mayor becoming involved in non-strategic applications, particularly as we are not altering the arrangements under which the Mayor is to be consulted only on applications that may raise issues of strategic importance.

Sydney Chapman: I am following the Minister very carefully because this issue is of great concern and interest to Londoners. Can he assure me that the Mayor cannot intervene in the drawing up of development plan documents by London boroughs, except where he has the right under existing legislation to call in certain applications for significant developments that are going to take place? It would be very helpful if he confirmed that point.

Keith Hill: I can confirm that the Mayor's powers of intervention relate to what may be deemed and defined as strategic issues of concern. That is the limit of his powers of intervention, and I hope at some stage to furnish the hon. Gentleman with some examples.

Sydney Chapman: I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way again. I am trying to curtail the discussion as we have a lot of other things to talk about, but I should point out that the Mayor can call in any application that refers to any part of the metropolitan green belt land. In some cases, applications relating to what is a small and insignificant part of the green belt can be called in by the Mayor. Can the Minister enlighten us on that point?

Keith Hill: As I said, the Mayor has no power to intervene in borough unitary development plans; he can, however, direct refusal of what are deemed to be strategic planning applications. I hope that that offers the hon. Gentleman some reassurance. Of course, the criteria for those interventions and the criteria relating to strategic planning applications are defined.
	However, where applications raise strategic issues that are covered by policies in the London plan, it is true that that could be an important consideration. Given the strategic role of the London plan, it should be reasonably straightforward for London boroughs, in determining planning applications—and for inspectors attending appeals against the refusal of planning applications—to give appropriate weight to strategic and local planning policies. The concerns expressed about planning applications becoming increasingly complex to determine do not stand up.
	As the House is aware, under these arrangements the Mayor already has the power to direct the refusal of a planning application of potentially strategic importance if he considers that granting permission would be contrary to the London plan, or prejudicial to its implementation. The London plan was prepared by the Mayor following extensive consultation and a public examination. London needs a spatial framework, and it is absolutely right that it should have development plan status.

Robert Syms: The Minister has gone some way towards reassuring Members about the concerns expressed, but it is still important to go round the track on this issue. Baroness Hamwee expressed concern in the other place that the London spatial strategy would take precedence over the boroughs' plans, and she discussed the way in which they would interact. My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) has drawn my attention to a letter sent to the Minister by Michael Snyder, chairman of the policy and resources committee of the Corporation of London. It is important to put the corporation's concerns on the record, and the letter states that one of them
	"relates to the status of the London Plan. When the plan was issued for public consultation in June 2002, our assumption was that its purpose was to guide the City in the preparation and review of our unitary development plan. The Bill, however, considerably alters the Plan's status.
	The Corporation's Planning and Transportation Committee considered the Plan on 6th September 2002 (some three months before the Bill was published). While the Committee was generally supportive, it expressed concern both at its length and its level of detail. The London Plan contains much more detail than is usual in a strategic document. Representations along these lines would most certainly have been made to the Mayor if the Corporation had been aware of the importance the plan was to be afforded by the Bill. Since I understand that other boroughs would have made similar representations, it appears unlikely that the London Plan would have remained in the form in which it now appears. The Corporation has no objection to a London Plan being afforded the status of a development document. It does, however, object to the existing London Plan being afforded that status.
	The level of detail in the London Plan gives rise to a second practical concern. The Corporation's planning officers would naturally expect to consider all major planning applications against the London Plan. Such is the level of detail in the Plan, however, that they will have to consider even the smallest applications against it. You will appreciate that this requirement will delay consideration of planning applications which would otherwise proceed expeditiously, running counter to the Government's laudable endeavour of speeding up the planning system."
	The Minister has reassured us that the Mayor's powers extend only to strategic matters, and that even though the London plan—it costs £50 and I am told that it is a jolly good read—goes into great detail, that does not necessarily mean that the corporation's concern about the testing of every application, even the smallest one, against the plan is necessarily justified. I am glad that that has been put on the record, and we do not wish to press the matter further.

Matthew Green: I was about to quote from exactly the same letter from the Corporation of London. As the third party, one frustration that the Liberal Democrats have to suffer is that sometimes, certain things have already been said before one gets to one's feet. However, the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) quoted the letter in excellent fashion and put the corporation's concerns on the record.
	My noble Friend Baroness Hamwee was right to raise this issue, not least because it has forced the Government to clarify the London plan's status in relation to the unitary development plans, and the question of its precedence. The corporation has expressed concern about the timing of the document, and it is not alone. The borough that it represents is not the only borough that might have given a different account of itself when the London plan was drawn up, had it known the extent to which the Bill would alter the plan's status. It is unfortunate for the Government that they have been caught out; the problem is one of timing as much as anything else.
	Baroness Hamwee, who is extremely knowledgeable about London planning matters, has sought to ensure that the plan that will be enforced is not this one—the £50 document, which runs to rather a lot of pages—but a subsequent plan that is produced in the light of consultation and of this Bill. I understand the Government's reservations and why they are arguing a different case. As I have said, they have gone some way towards clarifying matters. They have made it clear that they do not expect this to be the guiding document for every planning application in London in the next few years.

Robert Syms: I am perfectly sure that the Government realise that concern does exist; otherwise, the Minister would not have placed a written statement in the record today, setting out a little more clearly how the London plan and the UDPs interact. Baroness Hamwee has done the London planning system a service by raising what is a very important issue, in order to iron out the genuine concerns raised by London borough councils.

Matthew Green: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The statement to which he refers has clarified many of the issues, but I hope that the Minister will check whether there are any other areas of contention. Perhaps the Minister will agree to look again at the concerns raised in the Lords, just to check whether any more clarifications are needed, but I am inclined to agree that, in light of the Government's explanations and assurances about their understanding of the interrelationship of the UDPs and the London plan, we need not press the matter at this stage.

Sydney Chapman: In a sense, we already have regional government in London, and county status. My borough has an estimated population of 315,000, which is a considerable number, and has many of the same planning powers as the counties. Regardless of whether we favour regional government, it is essential that all the planning bodies should work in co-operation and consensus rather than confrontation.
	I will be grateful if the Minister can confirm that, with the spatial strategy, the Mayor will not be able to change the boroughs' development plan documents once they have been adopted. It would be helpful for the boroughs to know that. I hope that he can give an answer now, but if not it would be helpful if he could write to me.
	I want to iterate what my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) and the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) said about the status of the London plan. I emphasise that when it was issued it was said to be a guide for the 32 boroughs and the Corporation of London and was certainly not supposed to be sacrosanct, with everyone rowing in behind it.
	I am sorry to go off policy and get into personalities, but we have a Mayor—whether he is a charismatic figure is for others to decide—who used to be a member of the Minister's party, but had a Damascene conversion and became independent, which some people think secured him the mayoralty. However, for the first time in my political career, which I admit has been far too long, I have witnessed a double Damascene conversion, and now it seems that he is back in the fold. I warn the Minister that he none the less has certain fixed positions and ambitions, and I do not think that they entirely coincide with new Labour orthodoxy as I understand it.
	As a Greater London Member like me, the Minister must know that the Mayor would like to abolish the 32 boroughs and have perhaps four or six—I cannot remember the precise number. Without intruding on his party's private grief, I implore the Minister to take a hold on the Mayor of London and see that he does what the Government think is right, and not to give him too free a rein, because there is a risk that everything will come tumbling down in tears. I am sure that I have the understanding, if not the agreement, of all Greater London Members, and not least the good lady, the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan). It is essential that the compartments of responsibility and power in the planning system should be utterly defined.
	I am not quite sure what the difference is between "conformity" and "general conformity" in clause 23. My perhaps too simple view is that there is either conformity or there is not. If we start dividing it, as in so many other areas in this Bill, we will start getting into trouble and giving the lawyers a field day.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Minister must make crystal clear the relationship between the boroughs' unitary development plans and the Mayor's spatial strategy, as otherwise there will be room for considerable chaos. When one adds into the mix the unitary development corporation in the Thames gateway, which will override both plans, there is even more room for doubt. The Wandsworth borough planning officer to whom I spoke some while ago about the interaction between the development plans and the spatial strategy was scathing about the amount of uncertainty and bureaucracy that could be generated.
	The Minister issued a statement on planning today. Perhaps he can explain to us what it means. It says:
	"The test is of 'general conformity' and not conformity. This means that it is only where inconsistency or omission in a UDP would cause significant harm to the implementation of the Spatial Development Strategy (SDS) that the UDP should be considered not to be in general conformity."
	I am sure that the whole House has followed that so far. It continues:
	"The fact that the UDP is inconsistent with one or more of the policies in the SDS, either directly or through the omission of a policy or proposal, does not, by itself, mean that the UDP is not in general conformity."
	I suspect that the House may be beginning to get lost by now. It continues:
	"Rather the test is how significant the inconsistency is from the point of view of the delivery of the SDS;
	Where a borough considers that one or more of the UDP policies or proposals are not consistent with the SDS, it must give robust reasons for this".
	That is real civil service gobbledegook. It is very important, in order that the planning system in London is not cast into chaos, that the Minister should give a clear explanation. I look forward to his reply with some consternation and trepidation.

Keith Hill: I am tempted to say that I rather share the hon. Gentleman's sense of anticipation, but I will endeavour to satisfy his concerns in due course.
	I should point out to my old sparring partner the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) that, among my multifarious responsibilities, I am the Minister for London and therefore in regular intercourse with the Mayor—as it were. He will also be aware that I have the honour to represent Streatham, or St. Reatham, as we like to call it—I recall that he himself is a resident of Batterséa—and that the Mayor was born and bred there, and is therefore Streatham's second favourite son. I am well aware of the Mayor's inclinations and dispositions, but I am delighted that he is back in the fold and I will be second to none in the passion with which I campaign for his re-election as the Labour Mayor of London on 10 June.

Matthew Green: Before the Minister comes to the explanation that the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) asked for, can he clarify, perhaps in his capacity as the Minister for London, whether he was in favour of the Mayor's readmission, as I gather that the issue split the Cabinet?

Keith Hill: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let me save the Minister the trouble of doing that by saying that it is outside the scope of our discussion.

Keith Hill: I knew that you would say that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am grateful for your intervention, but it goes without saying that I am unqualified in my enthusiasm for the Mayor, his membership of my party and his re-election campaign over the next couple of months.
	If I may be a trifle more serious about the issues raised by Opposition Members, let me respond first to observations made by the Corporation of London. Michael Snyder is a member of a council with which I am in regular contact. We were aware that it was possible to construe the Mayor's interpretation of general conformity as perhaps being unduly detailed. We are clear that it is a test of general conformity and not conformity. That means that it is only where a local development document would cause significant harm to the implementation of the regional spatial strategy or London plan that it should be considered as not being in general conformity. Conservative Members alluded to my statement today, which set out the Government's policy on general conformity. That statement reflects those principles and we also intend to provide guidance on the issue in planning policy statement 12.
	The hon. Member for Cotswold challenged me to provide a clearer explanation of our statement on the Government's policy on general conformity between the Mayor's spatial development strategy, the London plan and London boroughs' unitary development plans. I will also seek to offer reassurance to the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet on the relationship between the Mayor's powers and borough development plan documents.
	The test is, we believe, of general conformity, not conformity. That means that it is only where an inconsistency or omission in a UDP would cause significant harm to the implementation of the spatial development strategy that the UDP should be considered not to be in general conformity. The fact that a UDP is inconsistent with one or more policies in the spatial development strategy—either directly or through the omission of a policy or proposal—does not by itself mean that the UDP is not in general conformity; rather it tests how significant the inconsistency is from the point of view of delivery of the SDS.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: rose—

Keith Hill: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to complete my train of thought, I will be only too delighted to deal with his particular issues of concern. I am seeking to resolve some of the evident anxieties that he demonstrated.
	Where a borough considers that one or more of the UDP policies and proposals are not consistent with the SDS, it has to give robust reasons for its view. The opinion of the Mayor—that a UDP is not in general conformity—does not mean that a document automatically falls. Rather, the Mayor's opinion on the matter will go forward as a duly made objection to be considered by the inspector. At the inquiry, the inspector will determine whether he or she supports the opinion, and recommend accordingly. In addition to concerns about a lack of general conformity, the Mayor may wish to make other representations about making changes to specific policies and proposals. So far, so good.
	Let me turn to the specific issue of the Mayor's power, raised by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet. I am pleased to offer the reassurance that the Mayor has no power to intervene in borough development plan documents, but the hon. Gentleman specifically asked about the status of the UDP. Where a UDP review has passed the formal deposit stage, there is no specific provision for the Mayor to make formal objections on grounds of general conformity, but, like any other party, the Mayor may make representations to a borough at any time before the adoption of the plan. However, the Secretary of State would wish the Mayor and the boroughs to resolve issues of general conformity through discussion, having regard to the Secretary of State's policy. It will be for the boroughs to satisfy themselves that a UDP is in general conformity with the spatial development strategy before proceeding to adoption. I would also like to reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Mayor cannot call in any planning application, but can direct refusal of strategic planning applications. The definition of a strategic application is set out as I have indicated in circular 1/2000.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Minister is merely reading out words of civil service gobbledegook. Will he please explain in his own words the meaning of "significant harm" and "inconsistency" with the UDP. It would be good to hear in the Minister's own words what some of those terms mean. It remains unclear to me—and, I suspect, to the rest of the House and certainly to the planning community in London—what exactly will happen and the degree to which the UDP has to be out of kilter with the Mayor's spatial plan. Please can the Minister do better and explain to the House what those terms mean?

Keith Hill: With permission, I would like to respond to that. The hon. Gentleman should not get so agitated. It seems to me that the words—my own words—that I just articulated are absolutely crystal clear. I also draw attention to the fact that the hon. Gentleman's Front-Bench spokesman and the Liberal Democrat spokesman have both gone out of their way to welcome the clarification that my statement today has offered. That will do for me.
	Lords amendment disagreed to.
	Lords amendment No. 27 disagreed to.

Clause 44
	 — 
	Major Infrastructure Projects

Lords amendment: No.41.

Yvette Cooper: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
	We have considerable sympathy with the principles behind the amendment, but we do not think that either part of the amendment is necessary or sets out the best way to achieve the objectives. I shall deal with each part of the amendment in turn.
	The first part refers to economic impact assessments. We would expect the promoter of major infrastructure projects to engage with all parties at the earliest possible stage in the development of such projects. Indeed, we expect promoters to do full economic analyses of their project. It would be surprising if any developer or private or public funding body were prepared to sign up to major infrastructure projects without appropriate economic analysis being done. We must recognise that it is only at the stage that the application is made that the Secretary of State will be able declare that he thinks that the application is of national or regional importance and should therefore be called in, rather than left to the local planning authority. Only after that decision was made would the major infrastructure project rules come into play. It is the Government's view that to require an economic impact report to be completed at that stage is too late in the process.
	As I said, we would expect some form of economic impact assessment or analysis to have been completed at a much earlier stage. Assuming that the application is called in, the inspector will consider the economic effects, along with all the other aspects of the application as part of the inquiry. Those would also include environmental and any other impacts, and local people would have a further opportunity to raise their concerns, including any concerns on economic aspects, at the inquiry. If the economic impact is disputed, concerns can be raised about that, too. However, to require an economic impact assessment based on a particular format at this late stage therefore seems unnecessary. It also raises questions about why an economic impact report alone should be a statutory requirement for a major infrastructure project inquiry, bearing in mind the fact that there will be other considerations—about the impact on local communities, local amenities and other services, for example—none of which would be specified in the Bill. The Government do not want to predetermine through the legislation which issues the inspector should consider or focus on at an inquiry. The inspector will need to be able to consider what the particular issues to be resolved are, and what to devote inquiry time to, in each particular case.
	The second subsection of the Lords amendment would require that
	"Any planning application for a major infrastructure project based on a site-specific proposal in a . . . White Paper shall be considered by an inspector who shall be able to question"
	whether the development is needed. Again, we do not think that that requirement is necessary. Throughout the progress of the Bill, the Government have said that where there is a national policy statement White Paper, it should help to reduce the argument at a planning inquiry about the need for a specific development at a particular site—but that of course, the inspector is likely to have to consider the balance between need and other factors.
	Those who oppose a specific development will be able to present their arguments against it, and it is right that they should have the opportunity to do so. It has never been the Government's intention to rule out the possibility of the inspector spending some time considering need, but that will be done in the context of what is said about need in the national policy statement. The inspector must ensure that all relevant impacts of a specific development are considered during an inquiry, and that means all material considerations, together with relevant impacts such as the economic or environmental impact.
	The aim of this part of the Bill is to speed up the inquiry process for granting planning permission for major infrastructure projects. We are sympathetic to the intentions behind the amendment, but we think that legislative provision to enable an inspector to consider the issue of need is unnecessary. The Lords proposals in both aspects of the amendment are unnecessary, so we ask hon. Members to reject it.

John Hayes: In my experience, major infrastructure projects are often justified on the basis of economic benefit—or alleged economic benefit. Projects are frequently justified by claims about regeneration, job creation or trading opportunities. I am sure that other hon. Members will share my experience that in those circumstances, hapless communities are accused of being hostile to those advantages when they understandably seek to defend their communities from ugly or environmentally damaging schemes. Aesthetic arguments are regarded as obtuse or fanciful, and are too frequently disregarded.
	Yet there are those of us—I hope that they are represented in the Chamber tonight—who believe that the pursuit of truth and beauty is the most noble purpose of politics. In assessing economic advantage, it is important that other costs should also be measured and weighed, and the Lords, through their amendment, seek to rebalance the scales in favour of local communities.
	Lords amendment No. 41 is designed to test empirically the economic regeneration benefits that major projects promise. I recognise that with major strategic infrastructural developments, there will often be broader benefits that do not necessarily accrue in the first instance to the community in which the development takes place. However, where local people's quality of life will be directly, and sometimes dramatically, affected by such proposals, those people should have a key role in the decision-making process.
	The Lords' relatively modest suggestion that such factors should be measured independently and that the regeneration possibilities should be tested seems to me balanced and reasonable. I agree with my noble Friend Lord Hanningfield, who said in the other place that
	"a robust appraisal of whether demonstrable economic benefits will accrue must take place."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 March 2004; Vol. 659, c.904.]
	I know that you will forgive me for mentioning a local example, Mr. Deputy Speaker; in my constituency I am currently fighting a proposal to erect a massive number of wind turbines 100m or 120m tall—monstrous in a fenland landscape, as you will know. All kinds of claims are being made about the benefits of those turbines, but few of them are tested or subjected to the sort of independent analysis that is necessary if the significant costs in environmental damage are to be measured against those advantages.
	Inexact and uncosted claims are often made for such local planning applications, just as they are for major infrastructure projects of the sort that we are debating under the amendments. I shall return to that matter in both a local and a national context later, on behalf of my constituents and in defence of my local landscape.
	Lack of clarity about the assumptions that underpin development proposals often make the decisions on such projects all the more difficult. Independent analysis would discourage purely spurious claims, while allowing genuine benefits to be measured and weighed against costs, as I have described. It would restore public confidence in the system and assist with good decision making.
	Where people are facing a major project that will disrupt their community, they feel that they have little influence, and little opportunity to make their case. If they have to do so on the basis of what they perceive to be inexact information, or there is a lack of clear factual support for the project, that feeling of disempowerment is all the greater.
	The Government have accepted that principle elsewhere. As the Lords mentioned when they debated these matters, the Department for Transport is taking forward the recommendation of the Standing Advisory Committee for Trunk Road Assessment that economic impact reports should be produced before decisions on new transport infrastructure are taken.
	In that instance, the Government have recognised that such impact assessments can assist proper planning and decision making. Yet in this Bill, at this time, in this detail they are not doing so.
	Governments, when they run into difficulties, become increasingly suspicious of the people they govern. No one loves the man he fears, as Aristotle said. I suspect that the Government are becoming increasingly suspicious of the people and are beginning to disregard arguments that people should have the opportunity to have their say and to have their voice listened to.
	The arguments that have been asserted successfully and convincingly in the Lords would result not only in what I described earlier, but would allow for better and earlier public scrutiny of proposals. If we trust people and believe that they have a right and competence to be involved in a process, we need to provide them with information. We need to provide them with the facts so that they can become involved up front when the decision is taken, not later on appeal as has been suggested as a rather weak alternative. Truly believing in power exercised by people means supporting the kind of proposals embodied in the amendment.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend will be aware that in spite of the Government's timetabling of the Bill and two whole sets of Committee sittings, this matter was not discussed at all in Committee. I say that merely in passing.
	Clause 44(4) provides that if the Secretary of State gives a direction under the section, the application must be referred to him. That lies behind the thrust of my hon. Friend's argument. Would it not be a better procedure if the local planning authority considered each major infrastructure project as if it were a normal planning application, and then, and only then, once the local authority had heard the views of local people and made its own decision, the Secretary of State could call it in, as he has the right to do with any planning application at present before a determination is made by a local authority? If he did that, the local democratic process could operate.

John Hayes: My hon. Friend describes with typical assiduity and insight a different balance in central and local relations. He is speaking about a situation in which a local authority would assess the merits of a scheme in the first instance, on the basis, I hope, of the kind of empirical information that I have described. The Secretary of State could subsequently take a view, as my hon. Friend rightly says he can now, about the local authority's decision, the basis on which it was made and the wider public interest. That would rebalance the relationship, and it would change local perceptions of schemes.
	Half the problem is that the further we move decisions from local people and the more obtuse we make the reasoning behind them, the more likely we are to fuel irrational views about such schemes. If there is honest, open, up-front local discussion, based on good independent information, many of the concerns that can properly be satisfied by examination of the facts can, frankly, be dealt with. The more distant and esoteric the matter becomes, the more likely it is that there will be local concerns. My hon. Friend makes a helpful and interesting suggestion. The Minister has heard it, and I think that she will have been impressed by it. She may well wish to rise in a moment or two to say that she has thought again as a result of what he suggests.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: May I suggest that when such matters are called in by the Secretary of State and go to an inspector for a major infrastructure inquiry, the inspector would be able to deal with such an inquiry much more judiciously if he had the benefits of the local democratic process and of hearing local views? That would give him a much more comprehensive base on which to make his decision.

John Hayes: That is what happens with a typical planning application of the normal kind when it goes to appeal. The inspector studies what has happened before the stage at which he becomes involved and listens to local opinion during the course of the appeal. My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) is right to say that what he proposes would be much closer to normal good practice than the system that will result from what the Government propose. The Lords go some way to improving that proposal, although not quite as far as my hon. Friend, by introducing a degree of empiricism. My hon. Friend hits on an important point, however, when he talks about the balance between central Government and the locality in these sensitive matters. Major infrastructure projects and planning proposals of that kind are almost always highly contentious, and no one in the House would pretend that they will ever be plain sailing for any Government who seek to introduce major changes of this kind. There will always be different views locally, and there will always be good arguments on both sides of the case. However, the introduction—as the Lords propose—of a greater degree of upfront analysis into the process would improve the Bill rather than limit or damage it.
	The second amendment in the group deals with site-specific proposals in Government White Papers. In effect, that unhappy trend bypasses the planning process altogether. I make no apology for quoting Lord Hanningfield again, because he is a great authority on such matters and the distinguished leader of Essex county council. He said, in a debate on this subject:
	"Major infrastructure projects rarely enjoy all-round support"—
	as I said a few moments ago—
	"but they must have public legitimacy."
	It is an erosion of democratic decision-making if a White Paper pre-empts the question of whether a specific development is needed. As Lord Hanningfield points out:
	"A White Paper consultation does not adhere to the same checks and balances as a planning application."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 March 2004; Vol. 659, c. 905.]
	The Lords amendment would allow an inspector to examine the justification for a site-specific proposal in a White Paper, at an early stage and in a well-understood fashion, thus allowing public scrutiny, proper local debate and well-informed decision making.
	Too often, the need for a development is taken as read and the argument revolves around the strength or otherwise of objections. That might be said of the planning process generally. There is a presumption in favour of development, but it is important that the a priori case is examined, as well as the reservations and objections. That is all the more valid if the a priori case is embodied in a Government White Paper. Some people claim that the White Paper process is implicitly consultative and I suppose that that is true, but as Lord Hanningfield implies, it cannot be compared with the rigorous process that the planning system, at its best, can deliver. The need for a development should be tested. White Papers are not adequate in that respect and the Lords once again highlight an important weakness in the Bill.
	In both the cases that I have made, the Lords amendments would strengthen and improve the Bill. As the Minister said earlier, and I should have perhaps acknowledged, the Government have listened to the Lords on a wide variety of matters in relation to the Bill. The Government have accepted several of the suggestions made by the other place and the Minister was generous in his assessment of the quality of debate there. Given the strength of the arguments made in the other place on these amendments, which have been reaffirmed tonight, I hope that the Government will think again on these issues. The amendments are not unhelpful or damaging: they are designed to make the Bill better law.
	More politically, the Lords have once again championed the interests of the people against arbitrary power and insensitive Government. These very sensitive Ministers should listen to the Lords' case, accept the amendment and show that they are part of a listening team.

Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman's remarks were more of a major infrastructure speech than a speech on a major infrastructure project.
	The Minister attempted to dismiss the amendment on two grounds. Effectively, she said that the first part is unnecessary because economic impact reports will be compiled anyway. Her argument on the second part was that it is also unnecessary because the inspector will be able to question the need for specific development. According to her, the amendment is completely unnecessary because it all happens anyway, but if that is the case, there is no harm in its being in the Bill because it strengthens the case.
	I have a series of questions relating to each part of the amendment to flesh out what the Minister said. The first part of the amendment states:
	"Any planning application that the Secretary of State declares is of national or regional importance, as designated through subsection (1), must be subject to an economic impact report",
	but it does not say when. It could be before the major infrastructure project is declared of national or regional importance. People could claim that the economic impact report has been done, as specified in the Bill, even though it was completed before the declaration of national or regional importance, and it would not need extra work.
	It may, however, be the case that one of the projects does not, for whatever reason, have an economic impact report before the Secretary of State declares, at the point of planning application, that it is a major infrastructure project. In those circumstances, it would be reasonable and, indeed, desirable, especially as the Government rightly set great store by economic impact reports, that a report is produced. In that rare case when one has not been produced, the Bill would ensure that it is.
	I fail to understand the Minister's argument that the first part of the amendment is unnecessary because there will be an economic impact report in most cases. The amendment would not force people to compile another report. It would not slow the process down. If it contained the words "must be subject to a new economic impact report or one after the Minister's has made the call," I would have sympathy with the argument that it would slow the process down, but it does not say that. The report could be produced beforehand. The hon. Lady needs to flesh out her argument if she is to continue to oppose it on those grounds.
	On the second part of the amendment, the Minister said that we do not need to stipulate that the inspector
	"shall be able to question the need for a specific development"
	because any inspector can question that need, balanced against the other considerations, but that assumes that all applications will end up with the inspector, who will always produce a report. If the Minister can assure me that there will always be an inspector's report on major infrastructure projects and it will always be within the bounds of the inspector to consider the need for the development, perhaps the second part is not necessary, although its inclusion would do no harm. I suspect, however, that there may be cases when the Government want to speed up the process and do not envisage the inspector producing a report. Will the Minister confirm that some major infrastructure developments will not have an inspector's report? If that is the case, we might understand the Government's concern about the second part because it binds them to a report, which might not exist.
	The Minister looks confused. Perhaps my request was not clear enough. Most of us would envisage that most things that are described as major infrastructure projects would end up with an inspector's report. In those circumstances, she said that the inspector will question the need for the project because that is part of what he can do. However, are there any circumstances in which a major infrastructure project would not end up with an inspector's report? Is the Minister arguing that the problem is that an inspector's report would have to be produced because that is in the Bill? If so, she needs to make that clear. She seems to be arguing that the amendment is not necessary because what it proposes happens anyway, but I am concerned that, on both counts, that is not the case. We need the hon. Lady to be more open and, in light of her response, we may be in a better position to consider whether the matter needs to be pressed to a vote. At the moment, however, her explanations, which are similar to those given by Lord Bassam in the House of Lords, do not provide us with a good reason not to press the proposal to a vote. I am inclined to continue to press for a vote—and I hope that the Conservatives are—unless the Minister offers an explanation as to why the amendment is not necessary or, indeed, helpful. At the moment, she has not even said that it is not helpful.

Sydney Chapman: I find myself in agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) and the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green). I shall keep my remarks to a minimum, as my devastating logic has been pre-empted.
	I am sorry to repeat myself, but the purpose of the Bill is to introduce a faster but fairer system. The more jaundiced among us may say that we cannot have both—a faster planning or development control system will not be as fair as the existing one. I do not share that view, but I am sure that the Ministers agree that there is a delicate balance between preserving fairness and increasing the pace at which we consider major national or regional planning applications. In fairness to the Government, anybody who has lived through or even partly studied the Sizewell B planning inquiry or the fifth Heathrow terminal inquiry will know that the planning system has gone awry. I do not doubt that procedures can be speeded up, but I add the rider that the inquiry on Sizewell B and the public inquiry on terminal 5 took so long because of political considerations. For all I know, Ministers had a report months if not years before, but decided that it would be prudent to wait until after a general election before giving their verdict on the inquiry. If that is the case—and I believe it is—it is as much a criticism of the last Conservative Government as it is of the present Labour Government.
	I therefore accept that we need to look at ways in which we can speed up procedures in massive planning inquiries and applications of regional and national significance.

John Hayes: As ever my hon. Friend is making a compelling case. The key issue is that slowness owing to undercapacity in the planning system or ineffectiveness and inefficiency must be dealt with. However, the system may slow down because of the proper involvement of members of the public and local communities who wish to have their say. Is not my hon. Friend making the point that the process should not be so fast that that involvement is overridden or disregarded?

Sydney Chapman: In those mega public inquiries, there is obviously not a shortage of funds, as costs are substantial with the involvement of leading silks and so on. I do not want to go down that track, but I accept that there is a case for speeding up the system. The Minister said that the proposals may be unnecessary, but I agree with my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Ludlow that they are needed to cover the eventuality where the Government or the Secretary of State suddenly wants to throw certain options into the ring when deciding—this is old hat—whether we should have a fifth Heathrow terminal, a second runway at Stansted or a fourth London airport. Perhaps that should be a sixth airport, because Luton and Stansted are now considered London airports. The amendment would provide a mechanism for guaranteeing that the Government or the Secretary of State of the day prepared an economic impact report, and would ensure that, at the appropriate time, an inspector could examine the need for the development.
	I share the view of the hon. Member for Ludlow that, far from being unnecessary, the amendment would give immense assurance to many people at a time when, rightly or wrongly, the new proposals make them feel that the planning system will become more remote, and that they will be alienated from it as a result of the regional spatial strategy initiatives. I very much hope that the Government will on second thoughts accept Lords amendment No. 41.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Clause 44 relating to major infrastructure projects was not discussed in either of the Bill's Committee stages. Those who remember the genesis and history of the Bill will recall that we had one whole series of Committee sittings and then, without precedent, the Bill was recommitted to Standing Committee. I do not believe that has ever happened to any other Bill. Such was the Government's ineptitude in getting the Bill right in the first place that they had to recommit it to Standing Committee.
	Even so, such was the Government's ineptitude in timetabling their business that we never discussed clause 44 and major infrastructure projects—one of the most important aspects of the planning system—in either Committee stage. Had we done so, I have no doubt that we would have been able to debate some of the issues in Standing Committee and the Government might have benefited, as we might have proposed amendments to improve the clause.
	Now a sensible amendment has been proposed in another place and the Government are bitterly resisting it. Let me try to explain to the House in a very timid fashion why I think their lordships are right. Let me explain what clause 44 does. I have already quoted from it in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), who introduced the topic admirably. I totally agree with him. Clause 44 (2) of the amended Bill, HL Bill 10, states:
	"The Secretary of State may direct that the application must be referred to him instead of being dealt with by the local planning authority."
	That is another example of the supreme centralisation of powers to the Secretary of State. In a rather otiose way, subsection (3) repeats that the application must be referred to him instead of being dealt with by the local planning authority.
	As I suggested to my hon. Friend, it would have been far more democratic and far more acceptable if the local planning authority had heard the application in the first place and heard all the local arguments in a democratic fashion, and the inspector had then made his decision. Such a decision would be much more acceptable to local people. After all, we are speaking of major infrastructure projects—the biggest and most controversial planning applications in the land—for example, for an extra runway at Heathrow, a new power station or a major new port facility. All such projects affect local people's lives.
	Clause 44 goes on to say:
	"The decision of the Secretary of State on any application referred to him under this section is final",
	so not only does he have huge centralising powers, but there is no right of appeal. Once he has called the application in for him to deal with, there is no right of appeal by the local planning authority or anyone else against that decision. Bizarrely, under subsection (10), the clause does not apply to Wales. Whereas the Secretary of State has huge centralising powers in relation to England, he does not have the same power in respect of Wales.
	The Secretary of State having called in the application, he appoints a lead inspector who—if the Under-Secretary would do me the courtesy of listening to what I have to say rather than chatting to her colleague, she might learn something—who does not have the power in his own house to decide how he will carry out the inquiry because he is considerably fettered by the Bill. Proposed new section 76B(2) states:
	"The Secretary of State may direct the lead inspector . . . to consider such matters relating to the application as are prescribed . . . to make recommendations to the Secretary of State on those matters."
	In other words, the lead inspector cannot decide matters himself. Subsection (3) states:
	"After considering any recommendations of the lead inspector the Secretary of State may . . . appoint such number of additional inspectors",
	subsection (8) allows him to remove them, and subsection (9) allows him to appoint others. In other words, if the Secretary of State does not like what the subsidiary inspectors are doing he can simply get rid of them and appoint others. Subsection (6) states:
	"If the Secretary of State does not act under subsection (3) he must direct the lead inspector to consider the application on his own."
	So if he does not like the other inspectors he can get rid of all of them because the lead inspector has to consider the matter.
	This is a huge centralising clause, giving the Secretary of State power to meddle and tinker in any way that he likes in these major infrastructure inquiries. This is very centralising and very undemocratic.
	By requiring that a major infrastructure project should have an economic impact report, their lordships are proposing a comparatively mild addition to the clause to try to make it slightly less centralising and dictatorial. I cannot see how an inspector could possibly do his job properly without such a report.
	The second paragraph of amendment No. 41 states:
	"Any planning application for a major infrastructure project based on a site-specific proposal in a national policy statement White Paper shall be considered by an inspector who shall be able to question the need for a specific development."
	I should have thought that that was pretty well par for the course. Again, I cannot see how an inspector could carry out a proper inquiry into one of the most major, most controversial, largest applications in the land without questioning the need for that development.
	If the Government resist this mild amendment from the Lords tonight they will be being particularly bloody- minded, and I hope that they will not do so because it makes a degree of good sense.

Yvette Cooper: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall reply to the debate.
	First, the inspector will still need to consider the balance between a project's economic impact and other benefits, and will still be able to consider the rigour of different analyses and assessments that are put forward, as is the case at the moment. We in no way dispute the importance of rigorous economic assessment and its role in any analysis of a major infrastructure project and in the debates that are necessary at the planning level. Material considerations that are disputed, whether economic, environmental, social, even aesthetic, will obviously be the territory of the inquiry.
	Interestingly, the concern of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) seemed to be that economic considerations outweighed aesthetic, community or other considerations. Some might argue that by putting economic impact assessments over other kinds of impact assessments, we were increasing the likelihood of economic considerations taking precedence.

John Hayes: My argument was that by examining the economic benefits of a proposal one would be best able to weigh them against other considerations. The problem is that the grand claims that are made for such schemes often do not ultimately bear fruit—at least, not for local people. The point is not to prioritise the economic aspects, but to be able to balance them against the others more accurately than is possible without such assessments taking place.

Yvette Cooper: The planning inquiry system is already able to deal with cases in which considerations are disputed. It can take evidence from those who are in favour, those who are against and those who present different analyses, then weigh it in the balance to determine whether particular material considerations or analyses to back them up are adequate or appropriate. That will continue to be so under the Bill.
	The hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) said that the amendment need not be an extra burden because it could refer to an impact assessment that had taken place at an earlier stage. I have some sympathy with that, but the Government continue to take the view that it is unnecessary to make such specification in the Bill because the inspector will still be able to consider contrary evidence from earlier economic impact assessments or analyses.

Matthew Green: If the Minister is to satisfy me on this point, will she state categorically that she cannot foresee any circumstances in which a major infrastructure development would not have an economic impact report attached to it? If she does not accept the amendment, she is leaving open the possibility of getting away with not doing one. If she can assure us that it will happen 100 per cent. of the time anyway, the amendment may be unnecessary.

Yvette Cooper: It is not necessary to include it in the Bill because appropriate economic analysis will already need to be provided. Personally, I think that that should often happen at a much earlier stage to justify the funding for infrastructure projects. Where there is any dispute or debate about the level of economic analysis that has been provided, the public inquiry process is already able to deal with the situation by considering the competing views that have been put forward. I recognise the hon. Gentleman's point, but it is unnecessary to include in the Bill specifications that add complexity and are not required for other kinds of impact assessment.

John Hayes: I want to be absolutely clear about what the Minister is saying. Is she saying that she can see no circumstances in which an economic impact assessment would not be produced, or that she can see circumstances where it would not be necessary? It is no good saying that the developer will come up with a series of suggestions and stories about what might happen, which could be tested by debate and discussion at a later stage. We are looking for empiricism, precision and independence: will those be guaranteed?

Yvette Cooper: We should be clear about what the amendment would and would not do. It does not specify that an independent economic assessment needs to be done by an independent body that is outside the process, but that an economic impact assessment should be done as part of the process. We would expect economic impact assessments, analyses or reports—however one chooses to describe them—not for all infrastructure projects, but at an early stage in the project development process. It is open for the inquiry process to test and debate those assessments and to determine the different kinds of analysis that might have been put forward should the inspector consider that that is a material consideration, or should it be disputed. Perhaps a specific analysis would not be disputed as part of the inquiry process or the infrastructure project process. We do not therefore need to specify that in the Bill.
	In all sorts of legislation, we do not specify that impact assessments are necessary when we expect an inquiry to consider whether something, for example, the impact on the local community, amenities, health infrastructure in the area, housing and so on, is material. We do not specify that things must be assessed, reports compiled or an inquiry conducted in a particular way. We are simply trying to allow the inquiry process to be appropriately flexible and take all such factors into account, bearing in mind that we support the principle that rigorous economic analysis is likely to be an important part of any discussion about infrastructure projects.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Under-Secretary is regarded as bright and one of the Government's rising stars. It will therefore be interesting to note whether she refers to proposed new section 76B(2), which I have already cited. If she were in the Secretary of State's shoes, she would have to direct the lead inspector
	"to consider such matters relating to the application as are prescribed".
	Can she envisage circumstances during a major, controversial infrastructure project inquiry, such as the terminal 5 and Sizewell B inquiries, in which she would not direct a lead inspector to include an economic assessment and consider whether there was a need for the specific development? If she can give us the assurance that she would always include such an assessment, we might be satisfied.

Yvette Cooper: It would be inappropriate to try to specify the actions of a future Secretary of State under a particular provision in an inquiry that we cannot anticipate. The Government have often said, here and in the other place, that we expect appropriate and rigorous economic analysis to be conducted at an early stage of major infrastructure projects.

Matthew Green: The Under-Secretary is on a slightly sticky wicket when she says that she does not want to include such a provision on the face of the Bill or to specify what other forms of impact assessment are needed. Another sort of impact assessment is included in legislation: the environmental impact assessment for major projects. That is part of an EU directive, which has rightly been implemented. There is precedent and the Under-Secretary cannot fall back on the defence that the Government do not specify other impact assessments. I hope that she will not rely on that.

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman is right and I shall spend some time considering that because there is an issue about environmental impact assessment. Having trained as an economist, I have a strong prejudice in favour of as much rigorous economic analysis as possible, even though rigorous economists often do not agree about their conclusions. We must acknowledge that, if we are to have a planning system that works efficiently and effectively in every case and is appropriately flexible, we do not want to get into the detail of specifying in primary legislation every aspect that must be considered.
	We have environmental impact assessments. We recognise that some issues will be a priority and must be considered but we must also get the balance right to ensure that inspectors make appropriate decisions about what the priorities are and concentrate on the material considerations in the individual project inquiries.

John Hayes: I thank the Under-Secretary for being generous in giving way, but she must be more precise. On the one hand, she says that we need to be flexible and on the other, that she cannot envisage circumstances in which there would not be such an assessment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) said, the Bill gives her the power to ask for such an economic impact assessment, yet she will not give a commitment to do that, despite repeated questions from the official Opposition and the minor parties—I pause for effect—or an assurance that, if she became Secretary of State, she would insist on such assessments. If she would give that assurance, the whole House would be satisfied. Why is she shilly-shallying around? Why is she dancing on the head of a pin over this?

Yvette Cooper: I think that we are starting to get a bit bogged down. I have set out the Government's position, which is that we strongly feel that economic analysis will form an important part of any major infrastructure project assessment. There is scope for an inquiry to consider whatever the most important issues are, and to specify at a late stage that this kind of assessment is necessary seems an unnecessary addition, given that these kinds of issues will need to be considered.
	The hon. Member for Ludlow raised some specific issues, and I shall respond to them briefly. He asked whether it would be possible for there not to be an inquiry if a major infrastructure project were at stake. I can assure him that it is inconceivable that there would not be an inquiry and an inspector's report into a major infrastructure project, because the whole purpose of this part of the Bill is to deal with projects that are called in for inquiry by the inspector but are so big and in danger of lasting so long that they need additional support and additional arrangements for, for example, several inspectors to get on with the business. I would draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to proposed new section 76B(7), which states:
	"In every case the lead inspector must report to the Secretary of State on—
	(a) his consideration of the application;
	(b) the consideration of the additional inspectors".
	The reason for arguing that the second part is not needed therefore has nothing to do with any desire to avoid an inquiry; there will always be an inquiry when a major infrastructure project is designated under this part of the Bill.
	Finally, I should like to respond to the points raised by the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown). I suspect that he has not yet had a chance to have his dinner, because his tetchy tone rather suggested a drop in his blood sugar level. Perhaps he should take advantage of our coming to the conclusion of this group of amendments to grab a Kit-Kat, as I gather my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning has done.
	The hon. Gentleman's concern about the time allowed for the debate was a little churlish, given that the debate that we had in Committee when the Bill was recommitted took place according to the timetable of the Opposition. Had they been so concerned about major infrastructure projects that they wanted to prioritise the issue, they could certainly have raised the matter at any stage, either in the debate on the timing of the Bill or at any other time—but they did not.
	The hon. Gentleman raised some other issues. He is concerned not about the specific measures in the Bill, but about the proposals for call-in. He will be aware that those proposals have been in place for a long time. The part of the Bill that deals with major infrastructure projects allows the process to be speeded up by having different aspects looked at by different inspectors in a proper, co-ordinated way so that we do not get stuck with the huge delays that have plagued these projects for a long time.
	The Bill provides an opportunity to improve and speed up the way in which major infrastructure projects are dealt with, and the amendments are unnecessary, although we recognise and welcome the spirit behind them and behind the points that have been raised. With that, I urge the House to disagree with the Lords in their amendments.

Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment:—
	The House divided: Ayes 277, Noes 164.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendment disagreed to.

Clause 45
	 — 
	Simplified Planning Zones

Lords amendment: No. 42.

Keith Hill: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 130 and 139 and the Government motions to disagree thereto.

Keith Hill: Together, the amendments propose the removal of existing references to, and provision for, simplified planning zones both in the Bill and in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Amendment No. 42 proposes to delete clause 45 from the Bill. Amendment No. 130 proposes to amend schedule 6, which would result in the deletion of all sections of the 1990 Act pertaining to simplified planning zones and the deletion of the accompanying schedule 7 to that Act. Amendment No. 139 proposes to amend schedule 9, which would mean that section 83(1) of the 1990 Act pertaining to simplified planning zones would not be repealed as proposed.
	The purpose of clause 45 is to amend the provisions for the creation of simplified planning zones so that SPZs cannot be made by a local planning authority unless the need for one has first been identified in the regional spatial strategy, or in the spatial development strategy in London, or by the National Assembly for Wales.
	I am aware that concerns were expressed in the other place about the possible imposition of SPZs. Where the RSS has identified the need for an SPZ in a local planning authority area—not a specific site—the local planning authority must consider whether an SPZ is desirable. If so, it will be for the local planning authority to identify an appropriate location and prepare a draft scheme. The local planning authority will then consult on the scheme, and may hold an inquiry if necessary. Following an inquiry, the LPA will either propose modifications to the scheme and consult on those, or proceed to adoption.

Matthew Green: This is a clarification of something that already exists in planning terms. How many of these zones have been created already?

Keith Hill: I believe that eight such zones have been created and that a further six have been considered. Of those eight, four remain extant. I hope that that very precise response satisfies the hon. Gentleman.
	As I was saying before I was justifiably intervened on, following an inquiry the local planning authority will propose modifications to the scheme and consult on them, or proceed to adoption.
	The Secretary of State is provided with powers to direct a local planning authority to make a scheme, or to make it himself, but it is highly unlikely that this power will need to be used. Local planning authorities will have been consulted on the preparation of the regional spatial strategy, and will have been able to express any concerns about RSS proposals. If a strategic need for an SPZ is confirmed in the RSS, the decision as to the exact location within the local authority area will be one for the local planning authority
	The provision also enables the lifespan of an SPZ to be varied to suit local circumstances. It can be varied to last any period up to 10 years, rather than just the standard current 10-year period. This provision supports the development of high-tech business areas, which will be referred to as business planning zones—a concept that was first introduced in the planning Green Paper of December 2001. BPZs permit a flexible planning regime that is intended to encourage and support the rapid development of high quality, high-tech business. We envisage that they will be used to encourage investment for growth and regeneration, and to support the development of clusters. BPZs will be high quality and have low environmental impact. All BPZ schemes will be subject to public consultation and will be required to undergo an environmental impact assessment. Their locations will be chosen to meet identified strategic needs and will be identified in the regional spatial strategy; there will be perhaps one or two per region.
	BPZs will be a useful strategic tool that will enable the pursuit and implementation of valuable development for business. That is why we want to retain the clause.

Robert Syms: The Minister has given an interesting explanation, and it is clear from the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 that the principle of simplified planning zones has hardly taken off. Even the Minister's expectation of one or two per region, which was also expressed in the other place, does not add up to a great deal. But our main concern is why the provision needs to be changed and why approval needs to be sought through the top-down approach of the regional spatial strategy. Why can we not leave the legislation alone and allow matters to continue as they are? I doubt whether the Government's ambition extends much beyond what has already been achieved under the 1990 Act.
	I should also point out that the Law Society does not consider it necessary to introduce new provisions for simplified planning zones, as there are sufficient existing statutory powers for local planning authorities. The Campaign to Protect Rural England has also expressed concerns. In keeping with one or two recent studies, it has considered whether the planning process itself impacts on competitiveness.
	This is not one of the most important or weighty issues that we have had to deal with this evening, but we are concerned that the Government are yet again trying to transfer more powers upwards. That the south-east of England—an area the size of Austria, with a population of 8 million—should be the main arbiter of where such zones should be located, rather than local authorities, is indicative of the Government's response. We shall not press this issue to a vote, but it has been interesting to hear what the Minister had to say.

Matthew Green: If the Minister were being completely frank, he would have begun by saying that this is not the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's favourite clause; rather, it is the Treasury's favourite. These measures were announced in the Budget of two years ago, and in reality this is Gordon's clause. I am not sure whether this constitutes planning with a lot of prudence attached, or planning leading to boom and bust. Either way, this is a Treasury add-on that the ODPM does not really care about.
	Baroness Hanham said to Lord Rooker that she had heard more enthusiastic speeches from him, and it is easy to see why. Lord Rooker said:
	"The business planning zones will provide a flexible planning regime to facilitate the rapid development of high-quality, high-tech business clusters and encourage investment for growth and regeneration."
	Then, however, he said:
	"I do not have any facts and proof to back that up, but that is clearly the aspiration."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 March 2004; Vol. 659, c. 167.]
	The Minister used the first of those sentences today—clearly, he had the same set of briefing notes as Lord Rooker—but I wonder why he left out that second sentence, which was very revealing about the ODPM's attachment to the clause.
	The zones are completely unnecessary. Only eight have been set up in 10 years, with only four still working. Businesses do not want them. High quality, high-tech businesses in particular want to operate in a structured planning environment. Perhaps we should not waste our time, as hardly anyone will use the clause and no one will really care, but that is not good law, and the Opposition should not let the Government do something simply because it will have no effect. It is probably not worth pressing this to a vote, on exactly those grounds, but the Minister would do well to square up to the Chancellor and say that the measure might have made a good speech at the time but does not really merit a place in the Bill.

Keith Hill: I reaffirm the Government's commitment to the clause, notwithstanding the hon. Gentleman's animadversions on my Department's level of enthusiasm for these measures. The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) asked why we are making the change. The reason is that we consider this a matter for regional planning. I understand why the official Opposition oppose planning at the regional level, but regionalism was in many respects established under the last Conservative Administration, although this Government have carried it much further, with a genuine commitment to decentralisation. I cannot, however, understand why the Lib Dems would oppose such planning.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the Minister give way?

Keith Hill: How can I resist the hon. Gentleman?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I would have thought that this was an area in which the argument was not about whether there should be regional planning, because the measure applies solely to such planning. We have heard that there have been only eight simplified planning zones in the past 10 years. Can the Minister predict how many there will be in the next 10?

Keith Hill: Of course I cannot, but let me draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that if this is a failure in policy, it is a failure of his own party's Government, as these measures were introduced under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
	The Government remain committed to these proposals and I call on the House to reject the Lords amendments.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Lords amendment disagreed to.

After Clause 49

Lords Amendment: No. 45.

Keith Hill: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendment No. 46 and Government amendment (a) in lieu thereof, and Lords amendment No. 47 and Government amendment (a) in lieu thereof.

Keith Hill: I understand that amendment No. 45 was designed to address the concern that, when a local planning authority considers the length of time a planning application should remain valid, it will not always take into account such matters as the length of time it takes to assemble the site and organise funding. Currently, under section 91(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and section 18(1)(b) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, the local planning authority is required to consider "any other material considerations". If a local planning authority, in considering the duration of time needed for a planning permission, thinks that the time needed to assemble finance and land is relevant, that matter will be a "material consideration" to which the authority must have regard. The proposed amendment is therefore unnecessary.

Matthew Green: The Minister will know that in Committee the concern expressed about the duration of consent was that, although it is currently variable, councils do not vary it. If we are frank about it, most of the planning officers are not aware that they can vary it, or of what counts as a material consideration. Is there not a case for inclusion of the amendment as a means of sending a message to planning officers that they can vary the length of the consent? Whether it is three or five years, they need to be convinced of the need to vary it. In Committee the Minister agreed to ensure that planning officers would be told once again that they could vary the length of time granted.

Keith Hill: I share the hon. Gentleman's desire that local planning officers have proper access to information about the contents of the Bill and the powers available to them under it. I do not share his passion for loading everything—one is tempted to say "even the kitchen sink"—into the Bill. That tendency has re-emerged from our exchanges tonight. For that reason, we believe that the amendment is unnecessary.
	Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 would leave out the suggested provisions, making the default period for the duration of planning permission and listed building consent three years. The position is that the Government proposed through clause 50 to reduce the period of validity of a planning permission, listed building consent and conservation area consent from five to three years. Local planning authorities will be able to agree longer periods where appropriate—for example, for complex regeneration projects. There is a right of appeal to the Secretary of State.
	The clause also prevents a developer from seeking to extend a permission by submitting an application to vary a condition. Any developer wishing to extend the time limit will have to submit a new application for planning permission and the local planning authority will consider the entire application afresh. Reducing the default period for permission and consent from five to three years is a crucial part of our agenda to speed up the operation of the planning system. A three-year default period sends a clear signal about the importance of delivery. We are pressing local authorities to speed up their planning processes, and we are showing an even-handed approach towards developers with our proposal for a three-year default period.
	Of course, circumstances can change and a three-year default period will allow changes to national guidance to take effect more quickly. We previously introduced an amendment whereby if planning permission were granted, but the grant of permission were subsequently challenged in judicial review proceedings, the duration of permission would be from the date of grant until three years—or other period as directed by the determining authority—after the completion of the proceedings.
	The amendment was inserted in response to concerns raised by developers that the shorter validity period, coupled with the removal of the provision that enabled developers to extend the life of the consent, could mean that the validity period had expired before judicial review proceedings had been completed. During consideration of the Bill in another place, it was argued that even expert lawyers would find it difficult to calculate when judicial review proceedings would conclude. We have been persuaded by that argument, and we tabled amendments to deal with the problem—another example of the Government's fair-minded and reasonable approach.
	Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 46 allows that where planning permission is granted subject to a three-year time limit by virtue of a condition imposed under section 91(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, or by virtue of section 91(3), as amended in each case, and the grant or deemed grant of that planning permission is challenged, the period of three years is statutorily changed to a period of four years in relation to that permission. Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 47 makes a similar change to the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
	The Government have listened to criticism during the consideration of the clause, and we have proposed amendments to deal with problems arising from legal challenge. However, a three-year default period for planning permission is a central part of our programme of speeding up the operation of the planning system, and we are sticking with it. The Government therefore cannot accept Amendments Nos. 45, 46 or 47.

Robert Syms: It is a pity that at the end of these proceedings, the Minister has not listened to many of the outside bodies that expressed concern about the change. There is general happiness with the present five-year period. As the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) pointed out, there is already scope for planning authorities to vary the length of planning permission if they so wish.
	The Government have on occasion overstated their argument about land banking. Indeed, most people who apply for planning permission with the intention of developing wish to do so as quickly as possible, but there are a vast number of hurdles to get over these days before people can start building, and sometimes planning permission is only the start of the process. People often find that things go rather slower than they had hoped.
	If the reduction to three years is made, planning authorities may become more caught up with many more applications. Already, in the south of England, some authorities are having great difficulty in determining the applications that they already have within a reasonable number of weeks. The upside would be that authorities would get more in planning fees, but the downside would be that some hard-worked planning departments would have much more work.
	I do not believe that three years is enough. There are a number of complications associated with development, especially with brownfield sites, and where land has to be decontaminated. The shorter period for planning permission could impact on the viability of many marginal and complex schemes. Funding would also be affected, especially where there is a mix between commercial and other development, and that could cause problems.
	I do not believe that the Government have made their case. Almost all the outside bodies that have made representations, such as the CBI, the Law Society and the Housebuilders Federation, say the same thing. I again draw the Minister's attention to the letter from Michael Snyder, the chairman of the policy and resources committee of the Corporation of the City of London, who sets out the problems he foresees, and says:
	"Not all commercial buildings will be vacant when planning permission is granted and achieving vacant possession takes time and invariably entangles developers in protracted negotiations. The position can be exacerbated where part of a site has to be subject to a compulsory purchase notice—compulsory purchase notices can themselves take up to three years to be finalised. Some schemes will also require road closures, which are of course subject to separate proceedings, adding to the delay."
	We all know that there are particular problems in the City of London and other places in our inner cities where development is taking place, but I suspect that shortening the duration of planning permission will make life rather more difficult for developers in those cases. The City of London in particular has been very successful, because over the past 10 years nearly 50 per cent. of the City's 8 million sq m has been rebuilt or subject to major refurbishment. That shows a great deal of success in managing things under the current regime, and I wonder whether changing the length of time that planning permission lasts from five to three years will really improve the prospects for development, especially where there are complex and difficult sites to develop.
	The Opposition feel strongly about this important issue, as do many people in the business community, and we may force the Minister into the Division Lobby over it tonight.

Matthew Green: I support amendment No. 45, which seeks to make it clear to local authorities that they have to consider all areas when deciding the length of a planning permission. The Government may be using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, but I have more sympathy with them on this issue than the Conservative spokesman seems to have. There is a problem with land banking, and part of that problem is that 99.9 per cent. of applications for planning permission receive five years for consideration. Local authorities have the power to vary the period, but they never do.
	The Government have decided that they need to tackle that and think that the only way to do so is to change the default period from five years to three. I have some sympathy with that idea, but if they are going to do that, they need to make it absolutely clear that local authorities can vary the period and that periods should on many occasions be varied to allow longer periods, particularly for complex applications or where, in a town such as Bath or York, there might be a reasonable expectation of finding archaeological remains, which is exactly the sort of situation in which a developer might reasonably expect to take more than three years.
	The Government have a case, but they have pushed it too strongly without giving the other side. I have some sympathy with the reduction to three years, but the position would be more acceptable if amendment No. 45 were accepted, because that would make it clearer to local authorities that they must take all sorts of considerations into account, such as the complexity of a development or archaeological or environmental considerations such as a need to deal with contaminated land. All that should be taken into account in deciding whether to allow more than three years—whether it is five years or even longer in some cases, particularly if there is a need to put a financial package together.
	The Minister needs to do a little more. He needs to give a little, and if he does, he may well find that opposition on this area will go away.

Keith Hill: The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) over-egged the pudding when he said that there appeared to him to be "general happiness" with the existing provisions for consents of five years. In our consultation, there was substantial support for a reduction from five years to three on the part of local authorities and non-governmental organisations. I reiterate that we have offered considerable scope in the Bill and in our general approach for flexibility on the part of local planning authorities.
	If I may say so without intending unnecessary provocation, in what was a somewhat cavilling speech from the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green)—that was very uncharacteristic—he mentioned contaminated land, which is exactly one of the provisions that we accept may lead to an extension of the period of planning permission, which I think the hon. Gentleman well knows.

Don Foster: Will the Minister give way?

Keith Hill: How can I resist?

Don Foster: The Minister has much knowledge of this issue, so can he assure me that included on the list of criteria alongside contaminated land will be the possibility of an archaeological find? Will evidence have to be provided, or will the mere possibility be enough? Such archaeological finds are fairly frequent in local authority areas such as Bath.

Keith Hill: The hon. Gentleman offers an enticing prospect of interpretation and definition around the possibility or likelihood of an archaeological find. We would expect local authorities to show reasonable openness and flexibility in relation to potential developments, and that is well established in existing approaches to the granting of planning permission over various periods. We do not wish the Bill to challenge such existing practice.
	The Government have shown openness in response to representations made in the other place on extending the period of permission in cases of judicial review. In general terms, the Government have sought to adopt an even-handed approach. The Bill offers a more democratic, more flexible and faster planning system. I must point out that in our final exchanges the Opposition parties have shown only limited commitment to those principles.

Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment:—
	The House divided: Ayes 280, Noes 163.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendment disagreed to.
	It being after Ten o'clock, mr speaker then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
	Lords amendment No. 46 disagreed to.
	Government amendment (a) in lieu agreed to.
	Lords amendment No. 47 disagreed to.
	Government amendment (a) in lieu agreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 130 and 139 disagreed to.
	Remaining Lords amendments agreed to.
	Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments to the Bill: Paul Clark, Linda Gilroy, Matthew Green, Mr. John Hayes and Keith Hill; Three to be the quorum of the Committee.—[Paul Clark.]
	To withdraw immediately.
	Reasons for disagreeing to certain Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

PENSIONS BILL (PROGRAMME) (NO. 2)

Motion made, and Question put,
	That the Order of 2nd March 2004 (Pensions Bill (Programme)) shall be amended by the substitution in paragraph 2 (time for conclusion of proceedings in Standing Committee) for the words "22nd April 2004" of the words "29th April 2004".—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
	The House divided: Ayes 310, Noes 113.

Question accordingly agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Income Tax

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (New Zealand) Order 2004 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 9th March.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

NOTHING

Justice

That the draft Lay Magistrates (Eligibility) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 11th March, be approved.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
	Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

Recovery of Sole Stocks in the Western Channel and the Bay of Biscay

That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 5199/04, draft Regulation on the recovery of sole stocks in the Western Channel and the Bay of Biscay, and No. 5205/04, Commission Staff Working Paper on a draft Regulation establishing measures for the recovery of sole stocks in the Western Channel and the Bay of Biscay; takes note of the Government's concerns about the targets proposed for recovery and the impact of the proposals on vessels catching sole as part of a mixed fishery; and supports the Government's intention to ensure a close dialogue with the fishing industry on these proposals.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
	Question agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
	That at the sitting on Thursday 29th April, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (2)(c) of Standing Order No. 14 (Arrangement of public business), proceedings on any Motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition shall be entered upon at the conclusion of Government business and may continue, though opposed, for three hours, and shall then lapse if not previously disposed of, and the Orders of the House of 28th June 2001 and 6th November 2003 relating to deferred Divisions shall not apply.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

NOMINATION OF SELECT COMMITTEES

Motion made,
	That the Standing Orders be amended as follows—
	(1) In Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business), line 18, leave out from 'committees' to 'which' in line 20 and insert 'to which that paragraph applies'.
	(2) In Standing Order No. 121 (Nomination of select committees), line 9, leave out from 'under' to ', or' in line 13 and insert 'the Standing Orders of this House (with the exception of the Liaison Committee, the Committee of Selection, the Committee on Standards and Privileges and any Committee established under a temporary Standing Order).'.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

Hon. Members: Object.

NORTHERN IRELAND GRAND COMMITTEE

Ordered,
	That—
	(1) the matter of the social economy in Northern Ireland be referred to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee;
	(2) the Committee shall meet at Westminster on Thursday 29th April at half-past Two o'clock; and
	(3) at that sitting—
	(a) the Committee shall consider the matter referred to it under paragraph (1) above;
	(b) the Chairman shall interrupt proceedings not later than two hours after their commencement; and
	(c) at the conclusion of those proceedings, a motion for the adjournment of the Committee may be made by a Minister of the Crown, pursuant to paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 116 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)).—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

PETITION
	 — 
	European Union Constitution

Bob Spink: The European Union constitution would undermine Britain's ability to set its policies in key matters such as the economy, asylum and law and order. It would give the unaccountable European Union a president, a foreign minister and its own legal system—elements that distinguish statehood. The House and Members of Parliament are here to protect Britain's liberties, not sell them down the river. That is why we in Castle Point compiled a petition to force the spin-obsessed Government to listen to the people. Hundreds of Castle Point people of all political persuasions queued up in all weathers to sign it.
	The petition states:
	To the House of Commons
	The Petition of Persons on the electoral roll in the parliamentary constituency of Castle Point, and others, declares
	That the proposed European Constitution, with which Her Majesty's Government have agreed in principle, involves grave and significant constitutional issues that affect democracy in the United Kingdom, self-government and the national interest, and makes fundamental changes in the relationship of the United Kingdom with the European Union.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons pass legislation to authorise a referendum of the electorate on the European Constitution at the conclusion of the intergovernmental conference.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

SHOP WORKERS (HEALTH AND SAFETY)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

Bob Blizzard: There are few, if any, sectors of the work force with which the general public come into contact more often than shop workers. Perhaps we tend to take shop workers for granted because being served in a shop is such an everyday occurrence for us. We should not. Any work that involves face-to-face contact with the public is not easy and all the signs show that it is becoming more demanding, more difficult and, worryingly, more dangerous.
	I first became fully aware of this issue when I was approached by my local representative of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, Lesley Maddison. She handed me a petition that highlighted the growing incidence of unacceptable violence against shop workers. It showed that my constituents were concerned about the problem, because more than 1,800 people had signed it. I know that many other hon. Members will have received similar petitions as part of USDAW's "Freedom from Fear" campaign.
	That campaign calls on the Government to work in partnership with the union, the police, employers and local authorities to help to stop incidents of violence against shop workers, and there is a real need for some joined-up thinking. For example, in most cases, it is the police who deal with crime and antisocial behaviour in and around stores, while local councils have a duty to reduce antisocial behaviour through their local crime and disorder reduction partnerships and to act as the enforcement body for much of the health and safety legislation. Employers have a legal duty to identify health and safety risks to staff, and to do what they can to prevent or control such risks, including the risk of violence. This is all fine, but those responsibilities would be more effective tools if those bodies worked together more closely to focus on the specific problem of the violence and abuse that is directed at shop workers. I believe that this raises the question of whether we now need a better and more coherent legislative framework to ensure that this co-operation and partnership actually happens.
	Plenty of legislation applies to the risk from violence at work, including the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995, the Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977 and the Health and Safety (Consultation with Employees) Regulations 1996. That legislation is good, and the problem of violence and abuse towards shop workers is substantially covered by it. However, there is a problem regarding its implementation.
	That problem is recognised by the Health and Safety Commission in its publication "A strategy for workplace health and safety in Great Britain to 2010 and beyond". This strategy builds on the strength of the commission's relationship with the Department for Work and Pensions and the collective ambition, which I share, to promote opportunity and independence in a healthy and productive work force. On page 6 of the publication, however, the commission states:
	"We have looked closely at the current division of enforcement responsibility between local authorities and the Health and Safety Executive and their ways of working. There is no lasting logic to the current arrangements. They are complex, confusing and based on boundaries and approaches that suit more the convenience of the regulator than the needs of business or the workforce."
	That strikes me as a strong argument for change and for doing something. I would argue, however, that it is not just the relationship between local authorities and the Health and Safety Executive that is complex; it is also the relationship with the police, retailers and the employees themselves.
	The figures suggest that much more needs to be done. Between 1995 and 2002, more than 118,000 retail staff were victims of physical abuse, about 250,000 staff were threatened with physical violence, and incidents of verbal abuse were estimated at more than 500,000 for that same period. Employers, unions and the police all agree that the problem is getting worse. Those figures were taken from the report of the British Retail Consortium, and it is recognised that they are probably an underestimate because many incidents are not recorded.
	We all know the Co-op, and it reported in its annual crime survey published last September that there had been an alarming rise of 39 per cent. in physical assaults against its staff compared with the previous year. The Co-op informs me that, since September 2003, in local Co-op stores in and around Lowestoft in my constituency, there have been at least nine incidents of assault against the staff of Anglia Co-op, often by offenders who have drink or drugs-related problems.
	The Government have quite rightly put great emphasis on cutting street crime, and I believe that they have managed to do so. However, one unfortunate consequence of that is that persistent offenders are increasingly targeting shops instead. Many are drug addicts who steal to fund their habit and are prone to aggression and violence if confronted. The Tesco store in Lowestoft town centre, for example, has all too often experienced incidents of violence and verbal abuse, despite Lesley Maddison's hard work to promote USDAW's "Freedom from Fear" campaign. Six months ago a girl detained in the store for theft threatened to bite and scratch the manager, telling him that she had HIV and that if she managed to scratch or bite him she would transfer it to him. During the Christmas period a boy entered the store waving a knife, causing the store to be evacuated. It is now all too common for staff to receive verbal abuse, to be threatened with a weapon—be it a knife or a walking stick—or even to be spat at. My researcher, who worked on this topic for me, was spat on once while working in a video shop as she removed videos from the drop-off box. The culprits then walked into the shop holding bricks and threatening to hit her and the manager.
	Such incidents are bad enough for employees themselves, but there are also wider consequences for the community. As we know, a local shop is often a community lifeline, but the single stores and small shopping areas are frequently more vulnerable to violence and abuse than the larger ones. In some cases such stores are having to close, depriving communities of what may be their only service.
	Another type of shop that is on the front line is the community pharmacy. Last night I was talking to a friend who is a community pharmacist, and learning of the problem with which he and his staff must contend as they deal with numerous drug-taking customers. The real answer, as we know, is to overcome the drug problem and tackle crime at its root, but that is easier said than done, and will take a long time. We must give far more consideration to the welfare of our shop workers, who today bear much too much of the brunt of the problem.
	The effects on staff who have suffered violence can of course be devastating, but even when the physical injuries are slight the mental scarring from being involved in or witnessing an incident can result in serious health problems. Post-traumatic stress disorder, for example, can take some time to develop. There are several examples of staff being bitten by suspected shoplifters, or stabbed with syringes when they try to intervene. USDAW has documented them. Sometimes, although the physical injuries are superficial, the uncertainty undergone by the shop worker concerning the risk of infection with hepatitis or HIV, and the need to keep going to regular blood tests and treatment, can be extremely stressful. Even when staff have not directly experienced an incident, they can suffer from ill health purely as a result of the fear of violence and abuse. They may experience nausea or insomnia, for instance.
	This, of course, also damages the industry itself. Employees living under the shadow of fear can become demotivated and miss work, particularly certain shifts that might be vulnerable. Days can be lost through sickness absence, and it is on record that some experienced and skilled staff are now leaving the industry. That same stress and anxiety can also have an impact on family life if staff take their fears home with them. Shop workers have reported being increasingly tense and irritable at home, becoming tearful for no apparent reason, short-tempered with family members, and reluctant to go out in public.
	So what is being done? Some stores are trying to help themselves, and have introduced uniformed staff after shop workers have complained. Security guards do have a deterrent effect on gangs of young people or persistent shoplifters, but owing to cost considerations there are usually too few to provide permanent cover in all but the largest stores. The attitude and behaviour of local managers is crucial. It is essential for employees to be backed up by their managers, and for managers to be given authority to provide that back-up and confidence when customers are abusive.
	The Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 contains a range of new powers and sanctions that the police can use to ban offenders from entering certain shopping centres or shops, or to disperse groups. Another initiative is the safer shopping partnership, which is being promoted by the British Retail Consortium in co-operation with local authorities and local police. I am told that it has succeeded in reducing the incidence of violent retail crime in a number of shopping centres. Habitual shoplifters and people with a record of threatening or abusive behaviour are banned from shops, and photographs are circulated. I understand that some 250 partnerships exist in the UK. I have to say, however, that a scheme of this sort was set up in Lowestoft—I may even have helped to launch it—and has had only limited success.
	So what more can we do? First, it is important that each of the relevant bodies dealing with the problem fully recognises its own function in combating violence and abuse against shop workers, and attaches real priority to that. There are parts of the country where the police could improve their response to incidents, and that could be a key performance indicator for the police. The criminal injuries compensation scheme could be improved to make it more generous and easier for victims to apply for. That would enable shop workers to feel that their experiences were real and that the effects that they had suffered were worthy of compensation, when injury had occurred.
	Many of the crimes occur when young people are asked for identity to prove their age to buy certain goods. I should like to see a proof-of-age card made compulsory, creating a culture in which a young person expects to be asked, knows that they have to be asked and so does not argue and quibble when they are asked. For that reason, and for many others, I fully support the Government's pressing forward with identity cards.
	The police and local authorities must work in a more co-ordinated way with local businesses on the use of antisocial behaviour orders to ban persistent offenders from shopping areas and town centres. Although I understand that local authorities have competing claims for resources, I am concerned that often in recent years, enforcement activity on health and safety at work appears to have been squeezed out. Environmental health officers must be able to focus more on the prevention of violence and on providing protection against it, and co-ordinate their work with safety reps and union officials in stores, as well as with management.
	Many employers and retailers take the safety and protection of their staff very seriously and work hard to combat the increasingly tough situation that I have described; but not all do so. All too often, I have learned of, or seen with my own eyes, inadequately protected staff left isolated and exposed to unacceptable risk without proper back-up from management, even when staff have complained.
	There is a real need for the Government to look seriously at the problem and to see where the legislation and its enforcement are really working, and where they are not. Some of the measures that I have outlined could make a difference, but I return to the central issue: the need for all the relevant bodies to come together in a fully joined-up approach. That is just not happening at the moment. The statement by the Health and Safety Commission that I quoted earlier speaks volumes, and I shall repeat it:
	"There is no lasting logic to the current arrangements. They are complex, confusing and based on boundaries and approaches that suit more the convenience of the regulator than the needs of business or the workforce."
	That is why I argue tonight for a review of the legislation to be conducted by the Health and Safety Executive with particular input from local authorities. That would give us a better understanding of how effectively the legislation is working, and of its pitfalls. Furthermore, if specific problems with implementation were found, it would be worth questioning whether those problems were with the legislation itself or with the bodies implementing it. That would enable the Government to assess whether new legislation should be created. The HSE is in the best position to take that task forward, and we look to it to take the lead on such matters.
	I should like to acknowledge the help that I received from USDAW in preparing today's debate, and I pay tribute to its "Freedom from Fear" campaign. As part of that campaign, USDAW initiated respect for shop workers day on 17 September last year, and I hope that that becomes a regular, important event.
	My key point is that although much of the legislation is in place, greater promotion of the tools that the legislation provides is needed. We need an overall framework, focused on people such as shop workers who come into direct contact with the public, so that the necessary partnerships between the relevant bodies and the businesses actually work in combating these awful crimes against those who serve us. Retail staff in the UK have suffered for long enough, and it is time to create a culture in which abuse and violence against shop workers is deemed wholly unacceptable.

Chris Pond: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) on securing this debate on such an important subject, and in such a timely way. As he pointed out, the scale of violence and abuse to shop workers is a very serious concern and he gave some disturbing examples of such behaviour.
	Violence and abusive behaviour of that type does not have to be tolerated, least of all in the workplace. Everyone has the right to go about their work without the fear of physical assault or the intimidation of verbal abuse. Violence in any shape or form has a damaging effect on people's lives, their businesses and their families. At the very least, it can lead to the stress and psychological and emotional trauma to which my hon. Friend referred. At its worst, it can be fatal. That is why many of us—including my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy), who I am pleased to see here and who has been active on the issue—are concerned to ensure that we work with our constituents and organisations such as USDAW to ensure that we take the appropriate action.
	Work-related violence also represents a real cost to employers, leading to increased sickness absence, low staff morale and high staff turnover. In turn, these can affect the confidence and profitability of a business, and may be further compounded by expensive insurance premiums and compensation payments. Employers cannot afford to ignore the risks of violence to staff. Apart from the ethical and financial arguments, the law requires them to consider it.
	The Health and Safety Executive encourages employers to manage work-related violence in the same way as any other health and safety issue. To help employers do this, the HSE has published general guidance to help them prevent and manage work-related violence. The HSE has published practical guidance for retailers and their staff on how the problems and causes of violence might be tackled. It sets out an approach that can be adopted as everyday practice.
	The retail industry is an area where local authorities are responsible for health and safety enforcement and the HSE works closely with local authorities to ensure that key issues are addressed. Meetings also take place between the local authority unit and trades unions. Indeed, at a recent meeting violence at work was one of the issues discussed.
	We know from the latest British crime survey that there were just under 850,000 incidents of work-related violence in 2002–03. That is far too many, but it is significantly less than in previous years. That is not a cause for complacency. Work-related violence remains a serious problem and we know that there are some employees who are more likely to experience violence than others, including those who work with or deliver a service to the public—as my hon. Friend pointed out—such as shop workers.
	The Government are committed to tackling this problem. In March 2000, the Health and Safety Commission embarked on a challenging three-year programme with the aim of reducing the number of incidents of violence at work by 10 per cent. by the end of 2003. This programme was particularly targeted at sectors that are most at risk, including the retail sector. Under this programme, the HSE has published new guidance to help smaller businesses manage the risk of work-related violence. This includes case studies showing how businesses in different sectors, including the retail sector, have tackled the problem by taking simple and cost-effective steps.
	The HSE has published case study guidance showing examples of good practices in preventing and managing violence to lone workers, including shop workers. This is freely available on the HSE's website. It has funded the development of new national occupational standards in managing work-related violence. These standards will provide employers with a sound framework within which to develop detailed policies on work-related violence.
	To help sustain and promote this work, the HSE held a joint conference with the TUC in December 2002 to help raise awareness of violence in the workplace and to share good practice across different sectors and businesses. John Hannet, Deputy General Secretary of USDAW, was a principal speaker at this event. He explained how his union is working with employers to address the problem of violence to shop workers through its freedom from fear campaign, to which my hon. Friend referred. I want to take this opportunity to commend USDAW for that campaign.
	Doug Russell, also of USDAW, gave a similar presentation at the Health and Safety/Local Authority Enforcement Liaison Committee conference, also in December, to an audience of some 300 local authority officers and elected members.
	The Government very much welcome the work that USDAW is doing—in partnership with employers, the public, local authorities, the police and the HSE—to tackle this problem and to promote the message that abusive behaviour towards shop workers is unacceptable. My hon. Friend has done a service this evening by pointing out the importance of that partnership—of making sure that all the elements of the policy of addressing violent and abusive behaviour in the retail sector are carried out across the boundaries of those different agencies.
	The Health and Safety Executive is building on the momentum of the commission's earlier programme of work in order to demonstrate its continued commitment to working with key stakeholders and partners in reducing workplace violence still further. Future initiatives to tackle workplace violence will be designed to reflect the key principles of the commission's new policy "Strategy for Workplace Health and Safety in Great Britain to 2010 and Beyond", to which my hon. Friend referred. This strategy is clearly focused on making sensible health and safety a cornerstone of a civilised society. That means managing risks by working in partnership with stakeholders and by supporting the people best placed to make workplaces safer from harm—the staff and managers who work there.
	Some of these initiatives will also form part of the Health and Safety Commission's priority programme on work-related stress. We know that violence at work is an important factor in contributing to such stress. As part of the stress priority programme, the HSE is developing standards of good management practice to enable employers and employees to work in partnership to address work-related stress at an organisational level. These standards will provide a yardstick by which organisations can gauge their performance in tackling a range of key stressors. One of these management standards covers work relationships, and will include issues such as work-related violence and bullying.
	The future is about getting employers and workers to accept both the business and moral cases for workplace health and safety, and to work together to manage risks. Trade unions are key stakeholders in achieving this aim. I commend USDAW on its work through the campaign, and I commend my hon. Friend on bringing this issue to the attention of the House.
	The HSE and local authorities are working towards regional partnerships to maximise combined expertise and local knowledge in order to overcome issues of inconsistency. Local authorities are involved locally in statutory crime and disorder partnerships, working closely with the police and other blue light services. The HSE, working in partnership with local authorities regionally, will be able to work more closely with such arrangements.
	I have heard the arguments that my hon. Friend has advanced in this evening's short debate, and the HSE, the police, local authorities and the other partners who have to work together to ensure that we deal with violence and abuse at work—particularly in the retail sector—will read our proceedings carefully. We will look carefully to see whether we should be doing more, in addition to the measures that we are already adopting, to address this issue, and to ensure that shop workers and others can go about their work free from the fear and risk of violence and abuse.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to Eleven o'clock.